Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Limerick Markets Bill,

To be read the Third time To-morrow.

Radcliffe and Little Lever Joint Gas Board Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

British Dye Stuffs Corporation (Railways Transfer) Bill,

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

NEW WRITS.

For the County of Lancaster (Heywood and Radcliffe Division), in the room of the Right Honourable ALBERT HOLDEN ILLINGWORTH (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. McCurdy.]

For the Borough of Westminster (St. George's Division), in the room of the Right Honourable WALTER HUME LONG (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CAPITAL SHIPS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
what progress has been made with the building of the capital ships laid down or to be laid down this year; when it is anticipated that these ships will be completed; and whether the total cost of each ship has been calculated?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The detailed designs for the new capital ships are not yet sufficiently far advanced for tenders to be invited. It is anticipated the construction of the ships will take approximately three years from the date of the contract being signed. An estimate of the probable total cost of each ship has been made, but it is not desirable that this information should be published until tenders have been accepted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I assume that no steps have been taken yet with regard to the laying down, building and collecting material for these ships?

Mr. AMERY: A very small preliminary expense has been incurred, but nothing material affecting the complete freedom of this House to decide on the question when the Estimates come before it.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 2.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the names for the new capital ships have yet been decided upon?

Mr. AMERY: The answer is in the negative.

OFFICIAL WAR HISTORY.

Viscount CURZON: 3.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether Members of Parliament will be allowed to have access to all official documents relating to the War to which Sir Julian Corbett is allowed access; whether any expense is incurred by the publication of Sir Julian Corbett's History of the War; and upon what Vote is it borne?

Mr. AMERY: Individual Members of Parliament have no more privileges in this connection than the public generally. The expenses of the Official Histories of the War fall upon Civil Service Votes.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman say exactly what official document Sir Julian Corbett has access to which the public have not?

Mr. AMERY: I think I should have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (BUILDING TRADE).

Viscount - CURZON: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men have now applied under the Government scheme for employment in the building trades; and how many are now employed?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): More than 15,000 ex-service men have so far applied to join the scheme. At the present moment only 15 cases have been reported to me where men have been signed on under the contract for which the scheme provides. The scheme was, as my Noble Friend knows, launched on 18th April, when, to the very general and very grave trade depression from which we are suffering, had been added the stoppage of the mining industry. These things, I admit, at once very seriously hamper the building employers in the execution of the undertaking they have entered into with us. I am fully assured that there is no lack of anxiety on their part to help the scheme along, and I sincerely hope that improvement in the industrial situation may give them early opportunity so to do.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that has been made?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh! no, certainly not. But the reasons are beyond our control. Everything is at a standstill. All we can hope for is for better times, and as soon as they come, we can go ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS.

Captain TERRELL: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount of unemployment in the agricultural districts of England and Wales and how it compares with the total for this time last year?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot give separate statistics of all persons unemployed in agricultural districts as distinct from urban districts, but there were 2,764 shepherds, horsemen, cattlemen and labourers registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in England and Wales at 6th May, as com-
pared with 2,792 a year ago. In addition there were 294 women and 228 juveniles in these occupations registered at 6th May, as compared with 67 women and 88 juveniles registered a year ago.

Captain TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many agricultural labourers are unemployed in England and Wales?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will try and get the figures if my hon. Friend will put the question down.

Mr. J. JONES: Make the landowners liable to work.

SCOTTISH HERRING FISHERY.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour the result of his inquiries into the position of the Scottish herring industry; and whether he is taking any steps to deal with unemployment in that industry?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My inquiries indicate, I regret to say, that the prospects of employment in the near future are unfavourable. I doubt whether there are any special steps which the Government can take to assist the industry, but I am in communication with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary for Scotland in the matter.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment and prospects of unemployment in this industry are probably the result of the Government policy towards Russia and particularly of the passing of the German Reparation Bill which has stopped all trade with Germany?

Dr. MURRAY: Is it the fact that the Ministry are putting great difficulties in the way of workers in the herring fishing industry—both men and women—obtaining the unemployment benefit, and will he instruct the local centres to deal more promptly with those who apply?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In reply to the first question, that is really a matter for argument which I cannot answer in the time at my disposal. In reply to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I have to say that the Unemployment Insurance benefit is administered under the Act, and if he knows of any case in which he thinks
justice has not been done I shall be very happy to look into it if he will send particulars to me.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman argue this matter with his colleagues in the Cabinet?

Dr. MURRAY: Are the local exchanges not refusing the benefit on the ground that these people are seasonal workers and that there is no such work for them at this time of the year?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Their case is governed by the terms of the Act. If the hon. Member sends me any case of hardship, I shall be glad, as I have said, to look into it.

QUARRY DISPUTE, WEST OF SCOTLAND.

Mr. KENNEDY: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the lock-out of road-stone quarrymen in the West of Scotland; and if any action has been taken by his Department in this matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The attention of the Ministry of Labour has been drawn to this dispute, and the parties were invited to attend a conference under the auspices of the Department on the 22nd April. The owners, however, were of opinion that no good purpose could be served by this course, as they had already held several meetings with the workpeople's representatives, and, having regard to the fall in selling prices, they could not hold out better terms than those which had already been offered, namely, a limitation in the reduction of rates of wages to 10 per cent. for a fixed period of six months. The Department has suggested to the parties than they should refer the dispute to arbitration, but so far neither party has agreed to this suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, following on the assassination of Sergeant Rew, Royal Scots Regiment, at Ennis, the Clare Hotel, the Old Ground
Hotel, the house of Mr. Patrick Considine, and the grocery shop of Mr. T. V. Honan, chairman of the Ennis Urban Council, were destroyed by order of the military governor; on what ground these premises were selected for destruction; whether the owners were given an opportunity of rebutting any alleged evidence against them; whether he is aware that Mr. Honan was ill in bed in hospital at the time of the murder of Sergeant Rew and had been there in bed for three weeks previously; that he is a widower with six small children, the eldest being 13 years old, and that these children are now homeless; and whether he will state what evidence there was against Mr. Honan or his children to justify this destruction of his means of livelihood?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The murder of Sergeant Rew and the subsequent events took place in a martial-law area, and I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the premises of Mr. Honan and of Mr. Considine were selected for destruction as the owners were known to be among the chief organisers of rebel activities in Ennis. It was known at the time that Mr. Honan was in hospital and that he is a widower with several children. As regards the question of evidence, this is a matter which must be left to the judgment of the responsible officer on the spot.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman state that a man who was in hospital for weeks before this terrible murder is to be held responsible and his children rendered homeless, and does the right hon. Gentleman justify that by any sort of law of God or man?

MURDERS AND OUTRAGES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Denis Tuohy, aged 26, an ex-member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was arrested at his father's residence at Gortalassa, near Kenmare, by the military authorities on 1st May, 1921; that Tuohy's brother was informed by the officer in charge that he would shortly be released as there was no charge against him, and that later the same officer threatened Tuohy's father with a pistol on account of the alleged violence of Tuohy while in custody; will he say what
was the nature of this violence; is he aware that Tuohy's request for permission to attend Holy Communion or to be visited by his priest was refused, and that he was finally killed in circumstances of a shocking character and the body handed over to the parents; and will he say whether a public inquiry will be held at which the relatives of the dead man may be allowed legal representation?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have not yet received the result of the court of inquiry in this case, but I have asked that it may be sent to me as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman send it to me, or does he wish me to put down a question?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will send it to the hon. and gallant Member.

WOMEN PRISONERS.

Mr. HOGGE: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary the number of Irishwomen who have been imprisoned under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act or martial law; and how many of them are detained without trial or without any charge being formulated against them.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The number of women imprisoned in Ireland under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act or martial law is 402. The great majority of these were unfortunates sentenced to short terms of imprisonment for loitering in the streets after curfew, the majority of whom have served their sentences and been released. The number of women in prison in Ireland who have not been tried is eight. Of these one is awaiting deportation, and the remainder are awaiting trial. There is no woman in military custody or internment.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what were the charges against them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. HOGGE: My question asks whether there was any charge formulated against them. Does not my right hon. Friend, who is in charge of these matters, know what charges are alleged against them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of that question, and the notice is not set out in the written question on the Paper. It asks how many of them are detained without trial and without charges formulated against them, and my answer was that the total number untried was eight, that one was awaiting deportation, and that the remainder were awaiting trial.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it that the one awaiting deportation is not Countess Markievicz, who is a Member of this House?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: She is being kept in prison in Ireland.

Mr. J. JONES: Will she be entitled to become a judge of the Appeal Court?

HOSTAGES.

Major M. WOOD: 15.
asked the Chief Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the practice of carrying hostages on police and military lorries; if so, will he give orders that a record be kept of every instance in which a hostage is so carried and the circumstances attending each case; and whether he has now received the promised report in connection with the case in which a hostage was wounded?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can add nothing to the replies which have already been given to the hon. and gallant Member on this subject. As regards the latter part of the question, I have not yet received the Report of the Court of Inquiry, but I have asked that it may be expedited.

Major WOOD: How long does it take to inquire into a simple question of this kind? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this inquiry has been going on now for about two months?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of that.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Has the policy of carrying hostages received the approval of the Cabinet?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot answer any question as to what the Cabinet does or does not approve. The policy of carrying hostages is the policy carried out in different parts of Ireland, and has been most effective.

Captain BENN: Has the policy of carrying hostages in defiance of all the laws of warfare received the approval of the Government?

Major WOOD: Is it not a fact that another hostage has been killed while being carried on a Government lorry, and will the Government give compensation to the relatives of that hostage or any other hostage who has been killed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not included in the question on the Paper.

PRISONERS (TREATMENT).

Mr. KILEY: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to allegations as to the treatment of prisoners in Irish prisons and detention camps; and whether he will set up an independent inquiry to investigate the treatment of these prisoners?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Every complaint received by me or by the military authorities regarding the treatment of prisoners in civil prisons or in military detention camps in Ireland has been carefully investigated, and the result of these investigations shows conclusively that there is no ground for the establishment of such an independent inquiry as is suggested. In only two cases was there any foundation at all for the complaint made, and in those cases steps were at once taken to remedy the conditions complained of. Very few complaints have been made, and there is much independent testimony to the general excellence of the conditions.

CASUALTIES.

Mr. KILEY: 17.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the number of casualties among civilians and forces of the Crown respectively from 1st January to 1st May?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The casualties among the Forces of the Crown from 1st January to the end of April are as follow:


Police:



Killed
109


Wounded
224


Military:



Killed
48


Wounded
113


It is not possible to give even an approximate estimate of the total of civilian
casualties, as those sustained by rebels are, whenever possible, carefully concealed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not that appalling recital give the lie to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that his policy has succeeded? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot argue policy at Question Time.

RESTORATION OF ORDER ACT.

Mr. HOGGE: 19.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is prepared to make any statement as to the success or failure of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In the opinion of the Government the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act and the Regulations made thereunder have been successful in the object for which they were intended, namely, in assisting the Irish Executive to combat the forces of disorder in that country.

MILITARY COURTS OF INQUIRY.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War on what authority, by Statute, Rule of Procedure, Regulation, or Order, legal representation is refused to persons interested in military Courts of Inquiry in Ireland, and in cases where a legal representative is admitted to the hearing the right of cross-examination is refused?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. A. Sanders): By Section 70 (1) (a) of the Army Act, His Majesty may, by rules to be signified under the hand of a Secretary of State, make provisions in respect of the "assembly and procedure of Courts of Inquiry." The provisions made for this purpose and at present in force are Rules of Procedure 124 and 125. These do not provide for the appearance of counsel. Counsel have accordingly no right of audience before a Court of Inquiry. It has been the practice, however, where a Court of Inquiry is held in lieu of inquest under Regulation 81 of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, for the Court to allow counsel to be present on behalf of persons interested, and to put, through the President, questions to witnesses which, in the opinion of the Court, are material to the Inquiry.

Major WOOD: Is there anything in these rules which prevents cross-examination, and is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that hundreds of courts of inquiry took place during the War in which this right of cross-examination was allowed, and it has always been a common thing to allow cross-examination?

Lieut.-Colonel SANDERS: I think my answer covers the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question. As to the second part, I am not aware.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it much use allowing a legal representative to be present if you deny him the right of cross-examination?

Lieut.-Colonel SANDERS: All the question asks is what is the practice. It does not ask whether it is a good or a bad practice.

Captain W. BENN: What is the purpose of curtailing the scope of these inquiries in the way described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman?

Lieut.-Colonel SANDERS: I do not think that arises.

Major WOOD: Is there anything in the rules to prevent cross-examination? That is the question I put, and I have not had an answer.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDERS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can refer to the rule.

Major WOOD: I have referred to it. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what part of the rule prevents cross-examination?

Lieut.-Colonel SANDERS: No, not without notice.

Captain BENN: Why is cross-examination not permitted in these courts?

Lieut.-Colonel SANDERS: Without notice I cannot say.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is it not a fact that questions may be put through the President of the Court?

ARCHBISHOP MANNIX.

Mr. KILEY: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the conditions upon which the Government offered to allow Archbishop Mannix to proceed to
Ireland, and what good object has been attained by preventing the archbishop from visiting his native country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): No offer to allow Archbishop Mannix to proceed to Ireland was made by His Majesty's Government. The Government's decision was taken after careful consideration, and the Government are satisfied that in all the circumstances it was the right one.

Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statements stronger than those attributed to the Archbishop were made by other persons in August, 1914, and no restrictions were imposed upon those persons?

HOUSE DESTRUCTION, TIPPERARY.

Major-General SEELY: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether it was a fact that on 15th May Cloncurry House, County Tipperary, the residence of Mrs. Tobin, an aged widow lady living alone with her daughter, both her sons having been killed in action in the late War, was completely broken up and demolished by armed forces of the Crown, although no incriminating documents or evidence of any kind existed; whether such an act is contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government; and whether the Chief Secretary will issue orders prohibiting such actions in future?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of the facts stated in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, which was submitted to me only two hours ago. Tipperary is in the martial-law area, and I shall at once ask the Commander-in-Chief for a report. The wanton destruction of property is, of course, not part of the policy of His Majesty's Government. Most definite orders have been issued by the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of Police in reference to this question. I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that I shall give him the fullest report I receive from the Commander-in-Chief.

Major-General SEELY: With regard to the first part of the reply, of course the right hon. Gentleman could not answer at once on such short notice, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the facts are vouched for by the brother of this unfortunate lady, who is a much-respected resident of Ilkeston in this country? As
to the second part of the answer, if, as appears possible, a terrible blunder has been committed in this case, and possibly in others, will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that compensation, so far as compensation is possible, shall be paid to this unfortunate widow lady for the damage done?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was aware of the facts only as stated by the hon. Member. As to compensation for innocent sufferers in that part of Ireland which is in a state of rebellion, or in any part of Ireland, that is a matter now before the Cabinet, and I cannot make any definite statement. It is a very serious question, and it has been before the Cabinet. I hope the Cabinet will be able to come to a decision. It is a question which involves many problems that do not appear on the surface.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Hear, hear!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman would treat this matter seriously.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish you would.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is nothing the Government feels more serious about than the unfortunate suffering of innocent persons and their property, owing to the state of civil war now in Ireland.

Major-General SEELY: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that it is his policy to press upon the Cabinet that innocent sufferers shall be compensated, so far as compensation is possible?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not usual to ask a Minister about what the Cabinet may do.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: If the assassins should prove to be Sinn Feiners in disguise, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that full publicity will be given to the fact?

NORTHERN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS.

Mr. HOGGE: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the extensive intimidation and terrorism which prevailed yesterday in connection with the election of the North of Ireland Parlia-
ment; whether he could explain upon what grounds the police and military failed to protect voters who were endeavouring to exercise the franchise, and the agents of the candidates who were engaged in the polling booths?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My attention has not been drawn to any intimidation and terrorism, extensive or otherwise, that is alleged to have prevailed yesterday in the six counties where the Northern Parliament was elected. I have no reason to believe that the police or military failed to give all necessary protection to voters, but it is obviously impossible for me to attempt at such short notice to deal with any isolated instance of interference that may have occurred. If, however, the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any such case I shall have inquiries made immediately. The last Report I have from the six counties is a Police Report, and is as follows:
Reports now received from each county. Polls very heavy everywhere. All quiet. Last declaration in Tyrone not expected before Saturday. Some results, Antrim, Armagh, Fermanagh, Derry, and Belfast, will be available to-morrow.
The fact that, as stated, "polling has been very heavy everywhere" is, I think, a complete answer to the suggestion of intimidation. I think the House will agree with me that we ought to congratulate ourselves on the peaceful nature of the elections.

Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Ulster Unionists actually turned out the personation agents of the opposition parties from the polling booths in Belfast, and put in the polling booths men armed, to prevent the personation agents recording the votes of these people?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not understand the last part of the hon. Member's question. It is novel, even in Ireland, to have a personation agent record votes for other people. I do not know what they do in Edinburgh, but I can assure the hon. Member and the House that every precaution was taken in the six counties yesterday to have a perfectly free election. The fact that the poll was very large to my mind shows that the precautions were adequate, and answered the purpose for which they were taken.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if you get rid of personation agents, you may record the votes of even dead people?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of that. That is also novel to Ireland.

Mr. SWAN: Is it a fact that many of the Nationalists and Sinn Feiners who went to vote found their votes had been recorded by somebody else?

Colonel GREIG: On a point of Order. Is it in order, in accordance with the ruling of the late Speaker regarding questions which were addressed about the inception of self-government in India, for questions now to be addressed in this House affecting a Parliament or local independent legislature?

Mr. SPEAKER: This Parliament has not yet come into existence. In regard to further questions, clearly the Chief Secretary cannot know in detail what happened yesterday. Further questions should be put upon the Paper.

Mr. SWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the reason why Nationalists and Sinn Feiners were deprived of their votes in this election, owing to the want of protection?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has any information or any allegation, he should put it down in terms on the Paper.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statements have appeared in the public Press, not in one paper, but in a number, to the effect that Ulster Volunteers, who are to-day part of the forces of the Crown, have been inside the polling stations preventing the people from voting, and will he make inquiries into that statement?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As I have already stated, if any specific case of intimidation or misuse of armed forces be brought to my notice I shall naturally inquire into it, be the first to condemn it, and I hope successfully to deal with it.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 20
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1), whether the British South Africa Company has, in addition to land sold for cash, and for considerations other
than cash, disposed of 2,298,000 acres of land for which no payment has yet been received, and what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take to recover payment for these lands;
(2), whether, seeing that Lord Cave's award of £4,000,000 to the Chartered Company is subject to two deductions to be decided upon after valuation by other Commissions, these Commissions have yet been appointed; if he can state what is the composition of the Commission appointed to investigate the value of the lands alienated in Rhodesia to the company itself, and for considerations other than cash;
(3), whether it is now within the knowledge of His Majesty's Government that the total area of land alienated by the British South Africa Company in Southern Rhodesia to company promoters and others for considerations other than cash exceeds 15,920,000 acres; whether he is aware that the average value of land alienated in Rhodesia has been stated by the company to be 7s. 6d. per acre; whether, in these circumstances, His Majesty's Government anticipates that the Crown, instead of being a debtor to the company, will be in a position to claim a surplus; and, if so, to what purpose such surplus will be devoted?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): It is the case that the British South Africa Company have in the course of their administration of Southern Rhodesia disposed of considerable areas of land for various considerations other than cash, and have also appropriated certain lands for their commercial purposes. The area quoted as 15,920,000 acres is believed to be approximately correct. I have no knowledge of the figure 2,298,000 acres referred to. With regard to the value of 7s. 6d. an acre, I am unable to say what relation this may bear to the value of the land at the time the grant was made. The question of accounting for the lands is dealt with in paragraphs 72–75 of the Report of Lord Buxton's Committee, which is published in Cmd. 1273, and the matter is at present under consideration. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member need anticipate that the deductions to be made from the award of Lord Cave's Commission in respect of these lands will place the Crown in the position of being able to claim a surplus.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it that there will be a genuine valuation of these lands, and not the acceptance of any offers such as those that have been made public by the British South Africa Company, of some £100,000? Shall we have a definite valuation in accordance with the letter of Lord Cave's award and in accordance with Lord Buxton's views?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that in dealing with a matter of this very great importance, which at any stage may form the subject of legal process, I should be very ill advised to answer questions without adequate notice.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this £4,000,000 would otherwise come out of the pocket of the British taxpayer, and is it not his duty to protect the British taxpayer as well as investors in the British South Africa Company?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is the case. I do not think it will come out of the pocket of the British taxpayer. It is contended that the assets are sufficient to defray whatever charges there may be, and, although I am no ambassador for the investors in the Chartered Company, at the same time it is to be remembered that this company, to whom we owe the development of these regions, has never hitherto received a penny in dividends.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that they have received shares in other companies? Apart from that, will he see that this £4,000,000, or whatever sum it amounts to, if it is not met by the British taxpayer, is at any rate not thrown on the backs of the natives of Rhodesia—that their lands are not taken from them and sold or mortgaged to meet this charge?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite impossible for me to deal with these questions at this period.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Rhodesia greatly resent the attempts made in certain quarters to introduce prejudice into the matter?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we shall
have an opportunity of debating this matter, so as to see on which side the prejudice is?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have not taken the Colonial Estimates yet.

MESOPOTAMIA (ROADS).

Mr. C. WHITE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the amount which has been spent on road-making in Mesopotamia, and how much will be spent in the course of the present financial year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The information is not at present available, but if the hon. Member will state the period to which he wishes the figures to be related the High Commissioner will be asked for a report.

MIDDLE EAST.

Mr. C. WHITE: 24
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) when he will make a statement with regard to his visit to the Middle East and its results;
(2) whether he can make a statement with regard to the recent disturbances in Palestine?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Acton on the 10th May. No further information on the subject is yet forthcoming, as the Commission of Inquiry has not yet produced its Report. I propose to make a general statement on the Middle East on Thursday next week.

THAMES AIR STATION.

Mr. GILBERT: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to have an air station for aeroplanes upon the River Thames; if so, can he state what part of the river will be utilised for that purpose; if it is proposed to erect a proper pier or landing place for passengers arriving or departing from the river; will the aeroplanes who use the station be under the control of his Department or will the station be allowed to be used by commercial aeroplane companies; if the Government services will be utilised for Post Office mails; and what
steps have been taken in order that the ordinary navigation of the river shall not be stopped or interfered with?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The answer to the first part of the question is, that the flights to and from the Thames which have recently taken place have been of a purely experimental nature, in order to determine whether the river could be used by aircraft. The answer to the second part is, that the stretch between Westminster and Albert Bridges is considered the most suitable portion. The answer to the third part is, that the erection of a special pier would be undesirable, and it appears probable that it will also be unnecessary. The answer to the fourth part is, that if it is eventually decided that aircraft may alight on and depart from this portion of the Thames, it is anticipated that the arrangements would, so far as possible, conform to those at Government-owned civil aerodromes. The answer to the fifth part is, that it is intended to adhere to the existing principle that the mails are carried by commercial services. The answer to the sixth part is, that the whole investigation of this question has been carried out in close co-operation with the Commissioner of Police and the Port of London Authority, in order that the safety of the public and the interests of other users of the river may be adequately safeguarded.

ARMY CADETS, KIT ALLOWANCE.

Mr. RAPER: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the total value of the kit allowance given to successful cadets on leaving Sandhurst to take up commissions in His Majesty's Army?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The present rate of the normal allowance in aid of outfit issuable to cadets granted commissions from Sandhurst in the cavalry or infantry (other than the Household troops) is £50, together with a camp kit allowance of £7 10s. In addition, a free issue is to be made of revolver, binoculars, and prismatic compasses, either while the cadet is at Sandhurst, or when commissioned. The total value of these allowances and issues in kind may be put at £72 15s. Army Order 3 of 1921 (a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend)
contains full information as to the conditions under which, and the persons to whom, the allowances are issuable, and an Army Order about to be published will contain similar information as regards the issues in kind.

Mr. RAPER: Is the total allowance calculated to cover only field service kit, and not mess kit?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I think only field service kit. I will let the hon. Member know.

Dr. MURRAY: Will the 33⅓ duty on binoculars be allowed?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That does not arise out of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

BRITISH-OWNED MONEYS, GERMANY.

Colonel ROUNDELL: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British-owned money in the custody of German banks was, during the War, transferred by the latter to the German custodian for enemy property; that the German authorities are now disputing claims in respect of such money, made through the British clearing house, on the ground that there is a doubt whether they are governed by Article 296 or 297 of the Treaty; whether the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal has yet decided the point; and, if not, will he press for a decision in order that British subjects may receive their property without further delay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I am aware that in some cases British-owned moneys in German banks were transferred to the German custodian, but in most cases they have not been interfered with and either have been, or presumably will be, admitted as debts under Article 296. In certain cases the German clearing office has adopted the attitude referred to in the second part of the question. Discussions are taking place between the British and German clearing offices on the subject, and it is hoped that a satisfactory arrangement will be come to shortly, failing which a test case will be submitted to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication.

TURKEY.

Mr. HOGGE: 44.
asked the Prime Minister when the treaty with Turkey will be ratified?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot make any statement at present.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I am not even able to say that.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

STORES DEPARTMENT, LONDON (PENSIONS).

Mr. GILBERT: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any further steps have been taken by his Department to place all the employés engaged at the Indian Stores, Belvedere Road, S.E., upon a pension basis; and if such a scheme has been decided upon can he state the date when it will come into force?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The High Commissioner, who now controls the India Store Depot, has agreed with representatives of the staff side of the National Whitley Council to place the bulk of the employés upon a pension basis, subject to certain modifications in their terms of employment. If these are accepted by the men concerned, the scheme will come into force as from 1st April last.

EDUCATIONAL SERVICE.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for India what was the proportion of appointments in the Indian Educational Service which the Public Services Commission recommended should be reserved for men recruited in England and in India, respectively; and what are the proportions existing at present?

Mr. PARKER: As regards the first part of the question, the recommendations of the Public Services Commission, are somewhat complex, and my right hon. Friend would refer the hon. and gallant Member to their Report (Cd. 8382 of 1917, pp. 27 and 97). As regards the second part, exact figures relating to the country of recruitment are not available, but in March last the per-
centage of Europeans and Anglo-Indians in the Service was 65, and of Indians 35. Fifty per cent. of Indians has been sanctioned as the standard to be worked up to for India as a whole as qualified Indian candidates become available.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

RAILWAY GUARANTEE.

Major KELLEY: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport what additional charge the coal dispute has thrown upon the State under the guarantee to the railways?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Mr. Hogge) on this subject yesterday.

ENTERTAINMENTS (RAILWAY FACILITIES).

Sir W. de FRECE: had given notice of the following question:
35. To ask the Minister of Transport whether, in arranging for any further reduction of train services, he will represent to the railway companies the value of popular entertainment at the present moment and suggest the retention, so far as possible, of reasonable evening travelling facilities?

Mr. SPEAKER: called Sir Walter de Frece, who was not present.

Captain TERRELL: On behalf of my hon. Friend, I beg to ask Question No. 35.

Mr. ROSE: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is, in your opinion, right for Members to put down questions persistently, and never appear in the House to ask them?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know what foundation there is for that criticism. Does the hon. Member assert that hon. Members cannot have questions put for them, when they are called on a second round?

Mr. NEAL: In reducing train services for the purpose of conserving coal stocks due regard is paid by railway companies to the claims of theatre-goers for evening train facilities, and such evening trains as circumstances permit are retained.

NEW CONFERENCE SUMMONED.

Mr. CLYNES: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he can now make any announcement with regard to the coal industry dispute?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the House is aware, the Government has kept throughout in close touch with the situation, but there are still no signs of agreement between the parties to the dispute. The Government has, therefore, decided to make another effort to find a solution, and to summon the miners and the mine-owners to a conference on Friday next.

SILVER NICKEL COINAGE.

Major KELLEY: 36.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the minting of the silver nickel coinage is continuing; and whether means have been found to prevent its discolouration?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Mint is endeavouring to find means to prevent, or lessen, the discolouration of the coins.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Captain TERRELL: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury is still carrying on investigations to ascertain whether any reductions are possible this year in the Estimates or Votes; and whether there have been any indications of economies since the Budget statement?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. The Treasury is constantly exploring every possibility of effecting reductions in public expenditure. Further, a circular has recently been issued which, though primarily directed to the question of the preparation of next year's Estimates, will, it is hoped, as the result of the examination to be undertaken by Departments, secure economies in the course of the current year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to lay this circular for the information of hon. Members.

Captain TERRELL: Is it not true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently
issued a letter to each Government Department instructing them to reduce their expenditure by 20 per cent., and if that is so would it be possible to instruct each Government Department to report each quarter as to what economies they have effected, and, furthermore, could those reports be circulated to all Members of the House?

Mr. YOUNG: I do not think that is quite an accurate interpretation of the actual wording of the circular, but it will be at the disposal of hon. Members in a very short time.

HON. MEMBERS: It has been issued.

Captain TERRELL: Would it be possible for each Government Department to report each quarter as to what economies have been effected in their Departments? May I ask for a reply, please?

Sir S. ROBERTS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see his way to send instructions to the different Departments that it is the wish of the Treasury and of this House that reports should be made during the current year?

Mr. YOUNG: The suggestion shall be taken into consideration.

Captain TERRELL: May I press for a reply? Surely they could instruct each Department to report each quarter as to what economies have been effected.

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can hardly expect a further reply from me. I will take the suggestion, which is quite new to me, into consideration.

Captain TERRELL: I will place a question on the Paper next week.

BUDGET ESTIMATES (INDUSTRIAL UNREST).

Captain TERRELL: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement as to the effect of the industrial unrest on his Budget Estimates?

Mr. YOUNG: No, Sir. I cannot at present add anything to what was said by my right hon. Friend in the Budget Statement.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that employers all over the country,
through their associations, are refusing to accept arbitration in settlement of disputes that are arising?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that question must be addressed to another Minister.

EDUCATION RATES.

Sir J. D. REES: 41.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the rates to be collected in the City of Westmister for 1921–22 show an increase of £541,650 over the figures for 1920–21, of which increase education accounts for £257,046, and that the city council's expenditure shows a decrease of £106,139, which is nullified by increased demands made by other authorities for no less than £647,789; and whether drastic steps will be taken to bring the expenditure for which the Ministry of Education is directly or indirectly responsible, and in a less degree that of other Ministries, within limits such as can be borne by the community?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which he received to a similar question on the 10th May from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. With regard to the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of the suggestion indicated by my hon. Friend.

Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that this question chiefly refers to education, and that, therefore, the reply of the Minister of Health does not cover the ground?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I notice that the figures in the question are the same figures that were in the previous question.

Sir J. D. REES: The Department is different.

Sir J. D. REES: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the London County Council estimates for 1921–22 show an increase of 4d. for education; and whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to reduce the demands of the Ministry of Education?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. A report showing the items of increased educational expenditure was circulated
by the London County Council. The report does not justify the suggestion that the increases are due to the demands of the Board of Education.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these rates are pressing with extreme weight upon the ratepayers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not unaware of that, but that is not the question which the hon. Member asks. If he will read his own question he will find that it is quite different.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider increasing the amount of the necessitous school area grant, whereby the burden on the local authority will be reduced?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

TERMINATION OF THE WAR (DATE).

Mr. LYLE - SAMUEL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can forecast the date of the termination of the War in terms of the Termination of the War Act, 1918?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 2nd May last to questions on this subject, to which I have nothing to add.

GREECE AND TURKEY.

Mr. LYLE - SAMUEL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the present military situation in Asia Minor, and say whether any negotiations have taken place between Greece and Turkey?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have no information beyond what has appeared in the newspapers. As regards the last part of the question, it is not known that any negotiations have taken place between Greece and Turkey.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Have the Government no news except what is contained in the newspapers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not say that we have no sources of information except the newspapers, but our informa-
tion does not carry us any further than the information which has appeared in the public Press.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great danger to British interests by these continued hostilities in Asia Minor, and the danger of allowing the situation to drift? Are we doing anything?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think every body must be well aware that the great need of the world is peace, and His Majesty's Government will do all they can to secure it in all quarters.

LICENSING CONFERENCE.

Major KELLEY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the terms and personnel of the round-table conference on liquor restrictions and licensing reform?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to make a statement upon this matter in the course of next week.

Major KELLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the discontent in the country which is arising from D.O.R.A. being continued—and finding no fault with an Act which Parliament has passed, yet they object to being played with in this matter by the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the desirability of putting on this Committee people other than those connected with the temperance party and the licensed interest?

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting on the Committee representatives of working-men's clubs and institutes?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting representatives of mothers on the Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is no doubt, true, that in the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom, but in the diversity of their counsel there is often great difficulty in complying with all their requests. We shall try to make a representative
body well formed to produce the agreement which we believe to be within reach among, at any rate, a great body of public opinion.

Mr. RAFFAN: In the event of the Conference reaching substantial agreement can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of legislation this Session?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will repeat that question when the Conference has reported.

Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anyone is better capable of representing a mother than her son?

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 49.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Supplementary Estimate for the Minister Without Portfolio will be discussed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am not yet in a position to name a date.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In view of the great interest taken in this question, can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that it shall be taken as first Order on whatever day is fixed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, we shall try to do that.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the previous occasion when the Estimate was down, the undue time taken by the Minister in charge of the previous Vote prevented discussion of this Estimate, and in view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman, in justice to the House, consider the advisability of putting this Vote down on Thursday week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Without accepting the Noble Lord's suggestion as to what occurred on the previous occasion, or to whom the delay was due, I may say that it is the desire of His Majesty's Government that this Vote shall be taken at a time when it can be adequately and properly discussed and the sense of the House obtained upon it. I cannot undertake to put it down next Thursday or, I think, the Thursday of next week. I am very much in the hands of the House as to what Votes will be taken on a particular day.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I remind my right hon. Friend that Thursday is a day dedicated to ordinary Supply Votes, and does he agree with me that to take a Vote of this kind on a Supply day would be to deprive the House of its all too limited opportunity of discussing Supply Votes? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree also that this particular Vote is one which is brought in by the Government, and, therefore, outside the scope of the ordinary Supply Votes, and should not take up a regular Supply day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am always anxious to agree with my right hon. Friend when I can, but I find it impossible to do so on this occasion. This is Supply. Like all Votes in Supply, it is introduced by the Government on their responsibility, and if the House is not to discuss this kind of vote on a Supply day, I do not know what Supply days are.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The following question stood on the paper in the name of
18. To ask the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the arrest by the military at Ballybofey, County Donegal, on the night of 27th-28th April of the following men: Joseph Bell, Patrick Conway, Charles Doherty, Francis Kelly, Hugh M'Lean, James M'Gowan, and Mick Magee, and to the fact that no charge was made against them; whether his attention has been called to the events which took place on the night of 25th December, 1920, when the military broke all the windows of the Catholic residents in the towns of Drumboe and Ballybofey; and will he explain why motor-car permits are not granted to Catholics by the authorities, though the prevailing political belief of these people is constitutional nationalism?

Lieut.-Comander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask Question 18?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will take this opportunity of replying to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member a few days ago, with respect to the question of exceeding his "ration." I have looked upon the records, and I find that Mr. Speaker Lowther is not recorded ever to have said that in the second round the ration can
be exceeded. On the other hand, he said that a question on the Paper beyond the number allowed should be treated as an unstarred question. A Member is not allowed to change a question from unstarred to starred on a particular day. Therefore it follows logically that I ought not to call the question to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I daresay the words I mentioned were not actually uttered by Mr. Speaker Lowther: but are you aware that Mr. Speaker Lowther did on more than one occasion actually call the fourth question on the second time round?

Mr. SPEAKER: In addition to searching the records with the result which I have just indicated, I also made inquiries from those whose business it was to be present during the whole of question time, and they tell me that there has been no such practice. I, therefore, feel bound to follow the rule which has been laid down.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not this practice not a rule but a change which was made by Mr. Speaker Lowther himself, and therefore is it not within your power to change that practice in accordance with your discretion? When the questions do not take up the full hour, would it not be to the advantage of the House and the country to have these questions called on the second round? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I know that some hon. Members do not like questions, but it is not the tradition of this House that criticism of Ministers at question time is one of our primary functions, and ought we not be allowed to have the full hour? We have always had it up to now, and if the number of questions is cut down, at least give us the opportunity of having an extra one if time allows.

Mr. SPEAKER: If any representations be made to me later on as to a change in the practice, I will consider them, but for the present I shall not depart from it.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case, apart altogether from any questions on the Paper, that if a Member wishes to ask a question of any Minister up to a quarter to four, he is perfectly in order in doing so?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is true, with this exception, that a question which has been put down as an unstarred question cannot be changed into an oral question.

Captain W. BENN: Is it not a fact that the Standing Order says that questions may be asked until a quarter to four, and that the limitation to three in a case like that which is now before us would have the effect of curtailing the Standing Order, in deference to what is a quite recent practice?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think so. The present practice was adopted in order to give an increased amount of fairness to Members of the House, so that Members who put down a large number of questions might not be allowed to monopolise the time of the House. The fact that one or two days after the Recess we are able to save a little time is not enough, in my mind, to disturb the regulation.

Captain BENN: Are we to understand that this regulation will in practice operate to curtail the time given under Standing Orders for the purpose of questioning Ministers?

Mr. SPEAKER: Questions of which notice has been properly given within the arrangement confirmed by the House will, of course, be taken.

HOME-GROWN WHEAT (SUBSIDY).

Mr. GLANVILLE: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the amount which has been paid to millers in respect of the purchase of British wheat; and by what statutory authority these payments are made?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. The amount paid to millers, up to and including the 18th May in respect of home-grown wheat ground by them, is £782,006 7s. 7d. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, on this point on the 19th April last.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that had the farmers enjoyed a free market they would have received £4,000,000 to the end of December last year more than they did receive?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not prepared to accept that precise figure, but certainly they would have received a great deal.

WOMEN JURORS.

Mr. HAILWOOD: 30.
asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to amend the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, so as to exempt nuns and other congregations of women living in religious communities from liability to service on juries, seeing that the Schedule to the Juries Act of 1870 exempts peers, Members of Parliament, judges, clergymen, priests, and other men from such service?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The claim of nuns to be exempted from jury service should, in my opinion, be given favourable consideration whenever there is time for legislation on the subject, but I am afraid I do not see my way to introduce a Bill for that purpose at present.

GUARDS MEMORIAL.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: (by Private Notice) asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has any information to give the House with regard to the proposed Guards Memorial in St. James's Park?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): Plans are now completed. The First Commissioner is anxious to meet Members of the House to explain the details. I have arranged for Committee Room No. 9 to be at the disposal of the First Commissioner to meet Members at 5 o'clock on Tuesday, 31st May.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether he has any announcement to make with regard to a variation of business as previously announced for this week; and whether, in the event of the Finance Bill being disposed of, it is intended to take any further business to-night?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards tonight, I shall hope to take some of the Report stages if the Finance Bill is disposed of in time.

Mr. CLYNES: Which of them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary (Lieut.-Colonel Leslie Wilson), and we will try to arrange a programme which is acceptable.
As regards the programme of business already announced, representations have reached me, I think from all quarters of the House, that it would be inconvenient to Members to take a discussion on so important a Bill as the Railways Bill on Friday. I must point out to the House that we cannot continue to treat Friday as a day which is not available for important Government business, if we are to make progress. It is my business to meet the wishes of the House as far as I can, and I propose therefore on Friday to take the discussion on the Motion on the Labour Conference (Conventions) standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. G. Barnes).

The business for next week will be:—

Monday: Railways Bill—continuation of Debate on Motion for Second Reading.
Tuesday: Report stage of the Financial Resolutions of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill.
Wednesday: Supplementary Estimate dealing with Members' expenses.
Thursday: Colonial Office Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: As to the business to-day, will a statement be made as to the result of the conference with the Patronage Secretary?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot interrupt the discussion on the Finance Bill, in order to make a statement on what will follow when it is over. If there be any particular Report which It is desired to hold over I shall try to meet the convenience of the House—any particular Report, not all Reports. We propose to take the Reports in the order in which they stand on the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It has been decided to allow two days for the Railways Bill. Will the second day
in next week be a full day, or will the discussion end at dinner-time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We allotted two days. If the two days should not be required, or the whole of the two days be not required, we shall, of course, proceed with other business.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As to the business for next week, are we to understand that the discussion on Thursday on the Colonial Office Vote is to be confined to the statement of the Secretary of State on his visit to the Middle East, or is it to extend to the Imperial Conference and other Colonial questions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I imagine that it will be for the convenience of the House that the statement of my right hon. Friend on the Middle East should be made at the opening of the discussion. I hope there may be time to proceed with other matters properly to be raised on that Vote in the course of the day. Of course, the conduct of the discussion is in the hands of the Chairman of Committees, and not in the Hands of the Government.

Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember what took place at question time yesterday, when, in view of the feeling expressed in all quarters of the House, he promised to consider having a full day for the discussion of African questions, and another day for the Colonial Office Vote?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am quite prepared to keep the Vote open, and not to take it on Thursday night, so that if time can be found, there may be an opportunity for another day's discussion. On the other hand, if the discussion on the Middle East should not require more than half a day, it will probably be convenient to proceed at once to the discussion of the other important questions raised by my Noble Friend.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, with an Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to define and extend the boundaries of the borough and parish of South Shields and to alter certain wards of the borough and parish; to
authorise the corporation of the borough to provide and work omnibuses and to confer upon them further powers with respect to their tramway and electricity undertakings; to consolidate the local rates leviable in the borough and parish; to increase the tolls to be taken for the markets and fairs; to authorise certain street improvements and the purchase of lands and to make better provisions for the health, local government, and finance of the borough; and for other purposes." [South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.

South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Lord ROBERT CECIL: In the exercise of his undoubted rights my right hon. Friend has decided that it would be more convenient to the House if he reserved his observations on this Bill to a later stage, and it is a matter for very natural regret that we are not to have the advantage of his guidance in approaching this Bill. It is impossible to avoid repeating what has been the theme of so many observations already made on the Budget, namely, the very large—the enormous—figures which are involved in this scheme of taxation. Apart from the special revenue arising from the realisation of War assets we are to raise by taxation no less a sum than £1,058,000,000. This, of course, is in addition to what is raised by local taxation. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that, allowing for all differences in the value of money, and allowing for the repayment of interest on debt, that means we are going to raise somewhere between two and three times as much as we raised the year before the War. That is a prodigious sum, and one to which this House must continue to give the closest attention if we are to avoid very serious financial embarrassment. In regard to the actual scheme for raising money which is embodied in this Bill, the best feature about it is its extremely conservative character. I, personally, have a very strong belief that it is much better to continue old taxation than to raise new, and that as long as you can possibly manage it you should avoid changes in your method of taxation unless there is a very distinct advantage to be gained otherwise, because the taxpayer naturally comes to adapt himself to a particular form of charge, whereas a new charge will always be more galling and more serious than the old one. Therefore, as far as the general scheme of the Budget is concerned, the House has a right to congratulate itself that it is free from novel experiments. Undoubtedly,
there is one change which we would all desire, and which, as far as I can see, is not present in this Budget, while there is no likelihood of its being present in any Budget in the near future, according to the Government's present plans for the revision of taxation. I do not think it is a situation which will be greeted with any enthusiasm by the country. I am not sure, reading again the very interesting speech of the Lord Privy Seal in introducing the Budget, that even now the Government are fully aware of the very serious nature of the economic situation, or are fully convinced of the necessity of making drastic changes in their scheme of expenditure. I notice particularly one feature in my right hon. Friend's speech which seems to me, if I may say so with all respect to him, an indication of an extremely dangerous view. He said:
Internal Debt—and this is an observation which is sufficiently obvious, though it sometimes escapes some of the critics of Government finance—does not lessen the pool of national wealth. It transfers wealth, whether in the form of interest or in the form of repayment from one pocket to another, but it does not diminish the total. Foreign Debt is a drain upon the national resources. It lowers the exchanges, it reduces our purchasing power, and it affects our world credit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1921; col. 71, Vol. 141.]
4.0 P.M.
What does that really mean? I think it is rather a serious statement for a gentleman representing the Government to make. It means that there is no injury done to the country—to the credit and the resources of the country—by raising money by any extensive taxation, provided you employ the money so raised in the repayment of Debt. That is surely a most dangerous dogma. I venture respectfully to say that it is not really true in the least. Money raised in the form of taxes will always be an injury to the industry of the country, and it is not in the least true to say that because you pay that money back in the form of repayment of debt, or interest on debt, you remove all the injury to industry done by the collection of the taxes. A moment's consideration will show that must be so. You levy your Income Tax on all the Income Tax payers. Many of them are engaged in industry. Instead of keeping their money in their pockets in order to promote the interests of their industry, they have to hand it over to the tax gatherer. The tax
gatherer, it is true, pays it back, not to the same people, but to people who have invested in Government loans and who probably will not to anything like the same extent be engaged in industry but in finance. Apart from all other considerations, you take money from industry and give it to finance. That must be destructive, or at any rate a very serious blow, to the industries of the country. My right hon. Friend went on to say, or at least he implied, that internal debt did no harm to the world credit of a country. Surely that is an entire misapprehension. If the internal debt of a country be very large, and even if there be no external debt at all, there can be no question whatever that the world credit of the country will be affected by the size of the debt. We are often told that Germany is in a better position than this country, because it borrowed practically all its money from internal sources, whereas we borrowed largely from external sources. I agree that it may be a better thing to borrow from internal sources, but to say that Germany's credit is the same as if it had raised no internal debt seems to me to be a wild fallacy. I venture to insist on that point of view, because I think it shows a rather serious state of mind in the financial advisers of the Government. It cannot be too often reasserted that taxation is a great evil in a country. It does really interfere with the industry of the country, and the fact that you pay part of it back to those who have lent money to the country, though it may in some sense be a mitigation of the evil that you are doing, by no means removes the evil of the enormous scale of taxation under which we are suffering at the present time.
I also want to insist—this observation is not so much addressed to the Government as to others—on the fact that you cannot avoid the evils of taxation by any re-arrangement or modification of the methods by which the amount of the tax is raised. I know there are some people who think that you would greatly improve matters by having a capital levy. I have never been one of those who regard a capital levy as a dishonest or wicked device, but that it would be any alleviation of the difficulty under which we are labouring I do not for a moment think. Whether you raise your money by a
capital levy or by an excessive Income Tax, you are imposing, almost in exactly the same way but at any rate substantially, the same burden on the taxpayers of the country. It is the size of the tax and not the method of taxing which is the really important thing for this country to consider. In the same way, there are people, for whose opinions I have great respect, who wish to do away with all forms of indirect taxation and substitute direct taxation. I quite agree that there is a great deal to be said against indirect taxation. It is quite true that it falls, not necessarily on those who are best able to bear it, but on those who in fact consume the commodity on which it is paid. I remember a speech of the Financial Secretary last year in which he explained very forcibly the evils of indirect taxation and urged very much that among other things the Corporation Profits Tax, which he regarded as a very pernicious tax, should be abolished. I remember that he went very far indeed. He protested against all idea of taxing for any purpose except to raise money. I cannot go quite as far as he went. I think, if you are going to raise money by indirect taxation, it is better to put it on a luxury rather than on a necessity and on a pernicious luxury rather than on a harmless one.

Mr. WALLACE: What is a pernicious luxury?

Lord R. CECIL: It depends upon the view that you take. At any rate, there is a great deal of force in what my hon. Friend then said. Perhaps the House will allow me to read a passage from his speech:
The ideal tax in accord with the true canons of taxation is the Income Tax which is capable of being brought into as close relation as is humanly possible with the principles of general equity in taxation. Simplify that tax as circumstances necessitate in order that it may bear further and heavy burdens; simplify it and graduate it up to the degree that is necessary to obtain equality of sacrifice; extend its basis so that some of the burden is felt by all classes in the community, and then you will have laid before you the true and sensible path of taxation, and you can turn aside from such dangerous experiments, perhaps necessary experiments, as are proposed in the present Finance Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1920; col. 1511, Vol. 132.]
I am not personally opposed to a system of taxation which is mainly, if not entirely, direct taxation, providing that it
is spread widely enough, but I am satisfied that any system by which you try to raise the whole of the revenue of the country from the present Income Tax payers would be a very disastrous form of direct taxation. Direct taxation on a small minority of the population is the very worst form of indirect taxation. It is not in the least true that the people who are not taxed do not pay. They do pay, but without in the least knowing that they pay and without any direct knowledge of the consequences involved in excessive taxation. All taxation is evil and has a discouraging effect on industry. I do not say that all taxation is equally bad. Some taxes are worse than others, but all are bad. I agree that you may have taxes of such an excessive amount—we found that in the case of the Champagne Duty—that they will cease to bring in money. Take the case even of the Excess Profits Duty, because it is a mistake to suppose that excessive taxation can only be imposed on commodities. It may also be imposed on money, and may fail to bring in good results, if it be carried beyond a certain point, in precisely the same way as taxes imposed on commodities. In such cases, of course, as we have been reminded, you do an injury to the trade of the country without receiving any adequate return from your tax.
All this only leads me to the one thing that I desire to press upon the House. The only sound financial policy of the country at the present moment is economy, and I am very glad to see that from one point of view the Government have taken to heart some of the observations that have been made in this House on that subject. They have issued a White Paper. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) shakes his head, but I take a more sanguine view.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not deny that they have issued a White Paper. What I deny is that they have effected any economy.

Lord R. CECIL: I think it does show at any rate some consciousness of sin even if it does not amount to a promise of amendment. I welcome one part of that Paper. It does concede the principle of fixing a lump sum. It does say that public expenditure should not exceed a certain fixed sum. Some of us have
earnestly contended for that in this House, and we have been told over and over again by the Government, in the first place, that it is impossible, and, secondly, that it is just what the Government have always done. It is something that they have gone as far as that. They have fixed the sum. Otherwise, I say with great regret that the Paper is profoundly disappointing. It sets out with great courage the passage from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, in which he promised—it was a very shadowy promise—economy, and in which, after explaining how the expenditure will not be quite so high in future years because of certain reductions, he says:—
Even so, the starting point on the expenditure side on the present basis is not likely to be less than £950,000,000. Clearly that is too high, and must be reduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1921; col. 78, Vol. 141.]
I am afraid that as I read the White Paper there is no promise, no hope, held out that the expenditure will be reduced below £950,000,000. On the contrary, tremendous reductions are to be made, but the effect of them will be to leave the expenditure at that figure of £950,000,000 which the Lord Privy Seal very rightly says is too high. When you have made all these reductions which they hold out some hopes of making—I will not put it higher—taxation is not to be reduced by a single shilling. On the contrary, unless you make all these reductions, either taxation is to be increased or you are to resort to borrowing fresh money. It reminds me very much of the passage in that classic, "Alice Through the Looking Glass," in which the Red Queen explained that
You must run very fast indeed in order to remain where you are.
The Government, apparently, after prodigious efforts can succeed only in keeping taxation no higher than it is at the present time. That is a most disappointing result. Reading this Paper through, there is more than one passage in it which is not very encouraging from the point of view of economy. It says on the first page, in reference to the ordinary Supply Services:
The Estimate for these services in 1921–22 is £603,000,000, and next year there will be, apart from automatic growth of grants to local authorities, additional charges, e.g., under the Agriculture Act, 1920.
I should have hoped we should not hear any more talk about automatic growth of grants to local authorities. We cannot afford that kind of easy-going finance which we enjoyed in times of greater prosperity, which enabled us to look with indifference upon what is called automatic growth of grants, and when, after examination of the case, one comes to the Government's actual proposals, I think the House will feel with me that they are excessively inadequate. After explaining what ought to be done, the circular goes on to say:
His Majesty's Government have accordingly decided that it shall be an instruction to every Department to undertake forthwith, whether by the appointment of departmental committees or by any other procedure which may be thought desirable, a searching examination of their current expenditure, with a view to securing the large reduction in Estimates for 1922–23 which the situation imperatively demands.
That phraseology is terribly reminiscent of a number of other circulars that have been sent out in the past few months in the Government Departments, and I venture to press on the Government that we want something more effective than a mere adjuration to the Departments not to spend so much. If you do not go further than that, you will never produce any results. You must make up your mind not only to fix the total amount that you think we can afford—and, personally, I cannot help feeling that £950,000,000 is a great deal too high—but having fixed that, I am satisfied that you must go on and say to each Department, "You are not to spend more than so much, and within that limit you are to use the money as effectively as you can." Merely to say to the Departments, "You have got to economise, to reconsider your expenditure, to tell us how much you can save"—all these things, excellent in themselves, will, I feel sure, be quite inadequate to secure any real cutting down of the expenditure of the country. That fear is borne out not only by the fact that the Government do not, even in the circular, hold out any hope of a reduction of taxation in the years to come, but also, I am bound to say, it is largely borne out by the general trend of the Government policy in this matter. It would not be in order for me to deal in detail with the various failures in economy which the Government have committed during the past two
years. The latest one, the casual miscalculation by the Post Office of £3,000,000, is fresh in the mind of the House. Those who attend the Debates on the Estimates will remember time after time waste and extravagance in detail being pointed out to the Government and being almost admitted by them.
Quite recently we have had, at this very moment when the Government are issuing this circular, the proposal to relieve the salaries of Members of Parliament of Income Tax, and if I turn to wider matters, I see a similar failure to take the really necessary measures of policy which will secure a more economic administration of the country As far as I can make out, two years and a half after the Armistice, there are still in Europe nearly 4,000,000 armed men. It is quite true that a very small proportion of these are being directly paid for by this country, but this House will grossly fail to deal with the financial situation here unless they realise that extravagance abroad, a bad economic situation in the rest of Europe and the rest of the world, will react fatally on our situation in this country. I do not want, and it would not be right for me, to say a word about Silesia. It may be inevitable at this stage that we should be committed to a fresh military expedition in that part of the world. I understand we shall be told in a week's time what is really going on in Mesopotamia and the Middle East. I must remind the House that at present our expenditure in those parts is at the rate of something like £37,000,000 a year, compared with the total military expenditure before the War for all purposes of £28,000,000, so that, allowing for the difference in the value of money, we are actually spending in figures something like a third as much again in the Middle East as we were spending for all military purposes before the War.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is civil expenditure also.

Lord R. CECIL: Yes, but I am talking for the moment only of the military expenditure. Then, of course, there are enormous sums of money which we are forced to spend by the grave failures, as I think, of the policy of the Government in Ireland, over the coal dispute, and over a number of other matters. My
right hon. Friend at question time said, with great truth, that all parties and everybody in this country would agree that peace was essential to the prosperity of the country. It certainly is essential if we desire any real reduction in the weight of the taxation—real peace, peace abroad, which can only be secured, in my judgment, by a real, whole-hearted acceptation of a foreign policy founded on the League of Nations; peace at home, which involves not merely the invention of ingenious expedients for dealing with great industrial difficulties as they arise, but a serious attempt to get at the bottom of the industrial trouble and refund our industry on a more secure and stable basis.
I cannot help feeling that in 1918 this Government had an opportunity greater, perhaps, than has ever been given to any Government in modern times. They came back with a gigantic majority, with an Opposition in this House practically insignificant in numbers, and they were in a position to carry out without the slightest Parliamentary difficulty any policy which they thought fit. They had the possibility of despising popularity for the moment and founding their policy on a basis which would be, if not immediately popular, ultimately to the advantage of the country. They could have gone to Paris in no spirit of revenge, in no spirit of greed, but with a desire merely to re-establish, on the surest and securest foundations, the peace of the world and the reconstruction of society. Instead of that, they indulged in a rhetorical orgy, the consequences of which we are still feeling. It impressed itself on the negotiations for the peace, it impressed itself on their domestic policy. We had a policy of hanging the Kaiser and making Germany pay in foreign affairs, and a policy of making a land fit for heroes in home affairs. Both were unsound, both have proved terribly expensive, and even now I appeal to the Government to return to a sober and serious policy, one which will command the respect and not only the support of their fellow-countrymen, one which is free from splashy diplomacy and free also from the rhetorical flights of a Celtic imagination.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House, whilst willing to grant to His Majesty all moneys imperative for the public service, expresses its profound regret that in the third year after the Great "War, allowing for depreciation in money values and for the provision of the war pensions and interest upon war loans, the country should be taxed to double the extent of that of the pre-War period, and calls upon the Government in the current financial year to exercise the most rigid economy consistent with efficiency with a view to relieving the taxpayers of some of the heavy burdens at present imposed upon them.
A year ago I adopted the somewhat unusual course of moving the rejection of the Finance Bill. Reflection has taught me that that was an extreme method, which, whatever its merits, would never gain the support of a large section of the House, and consequently, after consultation with the small body of friends for whom I am privileged to speak, and with at least a dozen others who, although they are not sitting on our side, are in close harmony with us, and will, I hope, before long reinforce our numbers, we have tabled this Amendment. We have endeavoured to avoid the error, into which so many critics of Government expenditure have fallen in the past, of making false comparisons between the figures of to-day and the figures of pre-War times without recognising certain fundamental differences. Consequently, in express terms, we recognise the great depreciation which has taken place in money values, we recognise the necessity for providing interest upon various war loans, we recognise the necessity for paying war pensions, all too inadequate in many cases, and, having made all these allowances, the proposition I submit to the House, and in support of which I hope to carry a considerable number of Members with me, is that there must be something radically wrong when, putting aside all special war expenditure and making allowance for all depreciated money values, we find ourselves to-day, in the third year after the War, with a national Budget at least twice as heavy as that of pre-War days. Speaking in round figures, we have a Budget this year of £1,000,000,000. You may deduct £400,000,000 odd of that for war charges, leaving £600,000,000.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home): Far more.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I only take the figures in the financial statement—interest
upon loans, pensions, and one or two other items, but call it £500,000,000 if you like. That would leave you £500,000,000, comparable with the £200,000,000 which was the Budget before the War, and making a very considerable allowance for depreciated values, you get about the figure mentioned in the Amendment. May I just recall to the House one or two very simple figures, which, I think, hon. Members are apt to overlook? When the War broke out, the Budget, as I say, was £200,000,000. I remember when, after the Unionist defeat of 1905, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's party came into power, I attended a great meeting at the Albert Hall, and there he warned the country that £200,000,000 represented almost the breaking point in the financial capacity of this country. I heard him declaim against what he called the creeping paralysis which was coming over Parliament, and preventing Members exercising any control over public expenditure. A few months afterwards, I heard in this House the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), speaking from the Treasury Bench, make this remarkable statement. He said, speaking then as Chancellor of the Exchequer:
A uniform Income Tax of 1s. in the £ in time of peace is something which can never be justified.
That was before the War. Then there was a £200,000,000 Budget, against the £1,000,000,000, or the £500,000,000, Budget, a 1s. Income Tax, against a 6s. Income Tax, and a taxation of the people of this country at that time of about £3 10s. per head, compared with well over £20 per head to-day. The War is supposed to be over. That being so, I say there is something radically wrong in this state of affairs. I have said on previous occasions, and I repeat, that I am not one who accepts these Estimates of huge expenditure, deficits, and surpluses as sacrosanct communications to this House. To my mind, there is something ludicrous in the solemnity with which, year after year, we listen to the predictions of Chancellors of the Exchequer here manufacturing a prospective surplus or deficit, and giving us these White Papers full, of figures, every one of which always contains its own condemnation, because there is always a portion showing how
the revenue and expenditure compare with the previous year's Estimates.
I was looking at the financial statement the other day dealing with the estimated revenue for the last financial year. I find that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer made a mistake of £81,000,000 in his Estimates. If that happened in a business establishment we should probably have something to say to the gentleman responsible. Here we are asked to say how wonderful it was not more. To cover up this mistake the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said: "Oh, it is quite true the Estimate was out £81,000,000 gross in one way or another, but in some cases I got more than I estimated, and in some cases less, and, deducting one from the other, the mistake is only £50,000,000." It reminds me of the dying King's Counsel, who, by way of giving satisfaction to his conscience said: "In the course of my professional career I have lost many cases I ought to have won; on the other hand, I have won many I ought to have lost, and, therefore, in the end justice has been done." So with these figures. But there is the alarming fact that they are altogether wrong, and I do not anticipate we shall have very much of a change in the coming year, although we have now an Estimates Committee and a Public Accounts Committee and a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, if I may say so, has started well. He has issued a Memorandum. He has told us that in future he is going to supply the cloth, and the Departments have to cut their coats accordingly. I ventured to press upon the late Chancellor of the Exchequer a year ago, and a year before then, and, in popular parlance, he turned me down. Last year he said:
The hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley) who opened this discussion propounded for the guidance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the principle that it was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to act as a mere paymaster of the spending Departments. I agree. He went on to say it was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say to the Departments, 'I can find so much money, and not a penny more can you have.' I do not agree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1920; col. 337, Vol. 129.]
Then he went on to talk about the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility, the very phrase which appears in this White Paper, when the Departments are told that in cutting down expenditure
they need not trouble themselves about Government policy, but first cut down expenditure to £490,000,000, as against £603,000,000 in the present Estimate. At any rate, I say the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a start by reading the discussion of a year ago, and has adopted one or two of the practical suggestions. I notice that in the Estimates put before us, so far as I can see, there is no provision for Supplementary Estimates this year. We know they are coming. It is useless to put in figures. We know, in the present state of the world, they must come, and be very heavy indeed, and I do hope the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will carry out the spirit of the Memorandum issued by his predecessor to the spending Departments, to ask at the outset the maximum amount they are likely to require, because, in my opinion, the only justification for a Supplementary Estimate must be that it was unforeseeable, and could not even have been contemplated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to keep us out of Supplementary Estimates, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
I want to make one reference to an observation of the Noble Lord. He spoke about the cost of the fighting forces at the present time. I think before the War the total national expenditure on the fighting forces was £86,000,000 a year. According to this year's Budget, it is £237,000,000. If you make allowance for the depreciation in money values and call that, if you like, in to-day's currency, £120,000,000 to £130,000,000, you have got an increase of 50 per cent. over the pre-War expenditure, and I re-echo what the Noble Lord said, that we should not lightly embark on military or naval expeditions in any part of the world except where the interests of Britain are clear and definite. So much by way of rough and ready criticism.
May I just say another thing? It is no good being merely critical and destructive. I am one of those who think that we have pretty well worn out our old sources of revenue. Beer, whiskey, tobacco, and Income Tax have been splendid old servants in the past. It is no good our moral leaders teaching us, on the one hand, not to waste our substance in riotous living, and to avoid intoxicating drinks and other expenditure on things of that kind, and, on the other hand, look to these very sources for revenue.
I think the time has come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look for some new sources of revenue. There is a source of revenue available to the right hon. Gentleman, one to which his predecessor was quite friendly a year or two ago, one which keeps France going, one to which there is no moral or financial objection, in the issue of what is known colloquially as Premium Bonds. Members smile at that, and perhaps those who smile most have got some of them, because they make people very happy. But what is a Premium Bond? You issue a loan at an agreed interest. The capital and interest are guaranteed by the State. The difference between the interest you pay, and what you would have to pay in ordinary circumstances, you pool, and make a prize fund of it, and you have periodical drawings for prizes. There is scarcely a man or a woman in the whole of France who has not one or two of these Premium Bonds, and that is why there is not the same trouble in France that you are having here to-day. Your little man does not want £5 or £10 in War Stock to return a few shillings a year. I remember a man coming to me and saying, "Tell me, guv'nor, what are these War Savings Certificates about?" I said, "You pay 15s. 6d. and get £1 for it." He said, "When?" I said, "In five years' time." He said, "That is not good enough for me." But with Premium Bonds you can get the little man in the country, with his two, three, four, or five pounds, and I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer there is £1,000,000,000 waiting for him to-day by the issue of Premium Bonds. There is no real moral objection to them. If there were, that does not concern the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I quoted last year the statement of a predecessor of his who said:
Speaking, not as a public moralist, but in my capacity as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have this year to deplore an alarming increase in the sobriety of the nation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer must take no notice of the purely ethical aspect. He must ask himself: Is this a fiscal instrument capable of bringing vast sums to the Exchequer? Our ally, France, sets us the example, and other civilised countries have done the same. There is £1,000,000,000 waiting for you if you care to have it, and you will make the little man in the country a shareholder
in the British Empire. You will kill Bolshevism in that way better than by means which are adopted at the present time.
There is another source of income. Why has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a tax on all advertisements? The amount spent in advertisements in this country runs into hundreds and thousands of millions a year. There is not a firm spending a large sum in advertising which would be deterred from advertising by a shilling in the £ in the shape of a Government tax. I pressed it very much upon the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he said that France did not reap a very large harvest from her taxation of advertisements. But the French tax on advertisements is only in respect of hoardings, and even then they have nothing like the hoardings we have in this country. The advertising in circulars and newspapers to-day amounts to millions. A tax would hurt nobody, and would not affect trade or industry, and would bring in a huge sum of money. Let me trot out another of my old crocks—unclaimed bank balances and securities in the hands of bankers. I actually succeeded in getting a Committee appointed to consider that matter. When we got upstairs I found that the majority of the members were bankers who rather ridiculed the idea that there was any large sum available. We managed, however, to get some witnesses to admit there might be £12,000,000. I made a mental calculation that, if a man admits he has got £12,000,000, the probability is he has got more. The time came when we had to report. Four gentlemen met to draft a report to this House. Three of them were bankers. Notwithstanding that fact, they indicated that there was a certain considerable sum of money to be had. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer give facilities to a fresh Bill which will be introduced on the lines of the previous one, and let him take a modest £12,000,000 to go on with, with an annual contribution in the future.
There are many other things I do not want to keep up my sleeve. Let there be a tax on betting and on every form of gambling. Continental countries reap huge sums in that way. In France the tax is called the "right of the poor," and they distribute the sum obtained among the poor, the hospitals, etc. There are a
tax upon advertisements, a tax upon betting, the unclaimed bank balances, the premium bonds—that is enough for one year for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let him get on with that. Next year I will give him some more. I will give him now £2,000,000,000. That will help him very much and will not hurt anybody. I only want in conclusion to suggest with great respect to the House that this Amendment is one for which every Member, whatever his allegiance to his party ties, ought conscientiously to vote. We express our regret that, putting aside all War expenditure, making all allowances for the depreciation of money, our Budget to-day is twice as heavy as it was before the War, and we beg the Government to exercise the most rigid economy in public expenditure consistent with the efficiency of the public service. No one could object to that. You may say is a pious Resolution. It will have its effect. I do not envy the lot of any Member of this House who has to explain to his constituents why he did not vote for it. What can be his objection to it? What can be the Government's objection? I think the new Chancellor would be immensely fortified by it. He might say to the spending Departments: "Look at what the House of Commons says. We have got to do it, for that wretched House of Commons, after all, can be our master. We want to keep in office, we want to keep on friendly terms with Parliament. Parliament has told us to do this." Therefore, the Government would go forth fortified by this Resolution, and ration every public Department, and the new Chancellor of the Exchequer this day twelve months, when he comes down with his dry, dusty details, may find himself added to that roll of distinguished men who have made great names in connection with the financial administration of this country.

Major C. LOWTHER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HOLMES: The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) very truly said that this Budget was a conservative one. The Finance Bill contains few provisions for new taxation. In fact, the only alterations are in the way of reduction. If it were not for the provisions dealing with the abolition of the Excess Profits Duty which can best be discussed on the Committee stage, there
would be very little in the Finance Bill itself to give rise to debate. I would ask the House to consider for a short time the recommendations which were made by the Royal Commission on Income Tax, those which the Government have already adopted and those which possibly they may see their way to adopt a little later on. It will be remembered that last year the Lord Privy Seal said he was including in the Budget a certain number of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and that he proposed during the present year to introduce two Finance Bills, one of which would deal wholly with certain of those recommendations. That Bill was duly introduced, the Revenue Bill. It was put down for Second Reading. The night before the Second Reading was to come on nearly all the London evening papers contained articles attacking those provisions, and the following morning not merely the London papers, but the provincial Press, took up the same strain. By an alteration of the business of the House, the Revenue Bill did not come on for Second Reading that day. The agitation in the Press continued. Newspaper columns headed "Hunting the Taxpayer" were to be read, and attacks were made on the attempt of the bureaucracy to take away all the privileges of private people. In the end the Revenue Bill was withdrawn, and the newspapers who had conducted this agitation—which I think I am right in saying was entirely at the instigation of one rather able gentleman in the City of London—congratulated themselves that their efforts on behalf of the taxpayers of the country had been successful, and that an anxious Government had withdrawn the Bill. I suggest to the House that the reason why the Government withdrew the Revenue Bill had nothing to do with the administrative Clauses which were in it. If the Revenue Bill had come on for Second Reading the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had no difficulty whatever in showing that those administrative Clauses were entirely to the advantage of the taxpayers and not in any way against them. In fact, in order to give the House an opportunity of considering this matter, I propose to put down the whole of the administrative Clauses which are contained in the deceased Revenue Bill as Amendments in Committee, and, if I am so fortunate as to be called by the Chairman of Com-
mittees to move those new Clauses, the House will have an opportunity of considering the matter, and the Government will have an opportunity of giving their view, and I hope the result will be that they will become part of the law of the land.
I believe that the real reason for the Revenue Bill being withdrawn was that it contained a provision to abolish the three years' average. The abolition of the three years' average would have a serious effect upon the revenue to be derived by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Income Tax and Super-tax for the year 1922–23. Under the present provisions the Chancellor for 1922–23 will collect Income Tax on the average profits made by a business in the years 1919, 1920, and 1921. But if the Revenue Bill had passed he would in 1922–23 have taken Income Tax on the 1921 profits only. As we all know perfectly well, the profits from industry this year are far below what they have been in the other years, and therefore the revenue to be derived in 1922–23 by Income Tax on the 1921 profits only would be very small indeed, and so the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to maintain the three years' average and make all the business firms in the country pay on the average of 1919–1920 and 1921 instead of on the single year 1921. I can understand that from his point of view, but I want to ask the House and the Chancellor to realise what a serious thing that is going to be for the business firms of the country. You are going to ask them to pay, not on the profits which they are making at that time, but on the profits they made three years before.

Sir F. BANBURY: It comes right when trade revives.

Mr. HOLMES: Yes, that may be, but I am going to try to show that this will be one of the causes which will prevent trade reviving. I will do it straight away if I may. One of the reasons that caused trade to slump a few months back was that business firms were so overtaxed and had to pay so much into the Exchequer that they had not got the available cash left to buy raw materials and pay wages. We hope when this coal stoppage is ended and now that the reparations question is settled, trade here and all over the world is going to revive, and if at the end of the year trade is reviving the business firms of the country will require all the
money they have to increase their supply of raw materials and to pay wages. If at that time they have to pay taxation, not on the rate of profits they are earning, but on an imaginary figure based on their profits during 1919, 1920, or 1921, you are going to take away from them and put into the Exchequer something that is very necessary if industry is to carry on. The fact is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be not merely taking Income Tax at the rate of 6s., but because he will be taking that tax on a higher rate of profit than is being made at that time, he will be taxing them at a much higher rate than 6s., or in a rough and ready way we may say he is drawing on the capital of the nation. That does not affect the current year. The Revenue Bill would not have come into operation until 5th April next year, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider this matter before his next Budget comes along.
5.0. P.M.
I now come back to the administration Clauses of the Revenue Bill. We were told that in 1842 Sir Robert Peel reintroduced the principle that the Income Tax should be assessed by the people themselves and that the Crown officials should merely survey the securing of the proper amount of taxation reaching the revenue. That is the law as it stands to-day, that by means of assessors and unpaid commissioners and collectors the people of the country are supposed to assess and collect their own income tax. The Government officials who formerly were known as surveyors of taxes were merely supposed to survey the whole proceedings and see that the Government was not swindled. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he used in the Revenue Bill the words "Surveyors of Taxes." These gentlemen have been latterly called inspectors of taxes, and it will be confusing if we are going to have "inspector of taxes" used in practice when the Act of Parliament uses "surveyor of taxes."
We have in this country 650 bodies of unpaid local commissioners in England and Wales. The administration in connection with the Income Tax is carried out by them according to law with the help of their clerks, assessors, and collectors. I say according to law advisedly, for in practice nothing of the sort occurs. The local commissioners,
except so far as matters of appeal are concerned, carry out merely formal duties. The assessor and collector, who is usually the same person as a rule, sends out forms and collects them, writes up books, and presents them to the local commissioners, but, as was said before the Royal Commission, as a rule he merely acts as a sign-post to the surveyor. In only three towns are there full-time paid assessors, while in the remainder of the country the assessors' work is merely a side occupation, and they have other duties to perform. But while the surveyor of taxes is supposed to be merely a supervisor on behalf of the Crown, for many years he has done all the work, and if he had not the machine would have broken down. The assessors generally had not a sufficient knowledge of Income Tax law to carry out the duties which they are supposed to perform, and they have never been the friends of the taxpayer, not because they were not desirous of being so, but because they had not the knowledge. The surveyor of taxes has been a general "guide, philosopher, and friend" all round.
The surveyors are whole-time officials trained in Income Tax law and practice and able to deal directly and without formality with the taxpayer who cannot cope with the intricacies of the system or face the uncoordinated local bodies which meet occasionally in formal session. To use common parlance, the surveyor has "run the show" for many years with a tact, politeness and patience worthy of the highest praise. During the War they had exceptional duties to perform. They had thrown upon them the munitions levy, the Excess Profits Duty and the Coal Mine Excess payments, and now they have to deal with the Corporation Profits Tax. The provisions of the Revenue Bill which I propose to put down as an Amendment to this measure are to legalise the actual practice which has been going on for many years. No destruction or weakening of the safeguards is suggested. The General Commissioners and the Special Commissioners will still be the appellate bodies. That is the work which they have done thoroughly well in the past, and no suggestion is made that they should be removed from that position. The taxpayer will have the right to appeal to these bodies against any assessment which may be made against him.
One of the new Clauses will provide that certain specified assessments shall not go to the General Commissioners, and that is Clause 8 which deals with all assessments under Schedules A, B and D, the amount of which does not exceed the amount returned for assessment or is computed from accounts furnished by the taxpayer or does not exceed the amount of the assessment made for the previous year in respect of the same source of profits or income. The reason for not sending them to the General Commissioners for assessment is that they are usually local business men, and if a taxpayer does not desire that friends, enemies or trade rivals shall know all about his affairs he will under this provision have the right to settle his affairs with the Surveyor of Taxes and not let his business go before the local business men. It is entirely in the interests of the taxpayers and not against them. It is a pernicious system which allows certain local persons to have access to the statements of other people's income. These recommendations of the Royal Commission I think are satisfactory as making for efficiency and economy and fairness.
There were one or two other recommendations made by the Royal Commission which were not included in the Revenue Bill, concerning which I want to ask whether they have been abandoned by the Government or whether they will be introduced in the future. The first was the suggestion that casual profits should be liable to Income Tax. The House will remember that the first rule of Schedule D begins:
Tax under this Schedule shall be charged in respect of (a) the annual profits or gains, etc.; (b) all interest of money annuities and other annual profits and gains, etc.
The word "annual" is prominent, and consequently all profits that are not likely to recur annually are treated as exempt from Income Tax. Another way of putting it is that the profits which do not arise from transactions that do not form part of the ordinary business of the person who makes them are exempt from taxation. That is difficult to understand in our Income Tax law. The Royal Commission recommended that any business transaction for profit making should be taxed. That makes it easy to distinguish between transactions for investment purposes and transactions which are for profit making purposes. Of course, if
losses were made on the other side they would come in as a deduction. Then there is the question which was a recommendation of the Royal Commission, and which the Inland Revenue believed was already established under the law, for they went as far as the House of Lords in regard to it—I mean the payment of dividends and interest by means of the distribution of bonus shares. This refers practically only to Super-tax. Company A pays £10,000 in cash and the recipient is liable to Super-tax. Company B pays £10,000 in bonus shares and no Super-tax is payable although he might sell the shares on the market. The Inland Revenue fought this case and lost, and it is a recommendation of the Royal Commission that bonus shares of that sort should be liable to tax. It does appear to me that opportunities are given for avoiding Super-tax by not making this part of the law of the land.
I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is not going to recommend to the House the adoption of the Royal Commission's recommendations with regard to the prevention of evasion? The Royal Commission made two particular recommendations on that point, and one was that the taxpayer should be obliged to state whether he keeps books and that the Schedule D Return Form should require a copy of the taxpayer s own calculations showing how the amount returned had been arrived at, and that accountants furnishing accounts for clients should give a certificate, and any returns should be properly signed by the responsible people in either firms or companies. A further recommendation was in regard to calling for the accounts to be properly produced by the taxpayer, and there was a recommendation that the penalties for evasion should be increased.
The point I want to put is that this is a question of safeguarding the other taxpayers of the country and it is not for safeguarding the Chancellor's own position. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepares his Budget he sees that he needs so much revenue and the Income Tax is probably the last thing he considers. In the first place he finds how much his other taxes are likely to realise and looks to the Income Tax for the balance. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires £600,000,000 from the Income Tax in any one year. If the
range of taxation can be widened to bring in more people the rate at which he can tax everyone will be less, so that in preventing evasion and widening the range of taxation he is safeguarding the interests of the other taxpayers, and not in any way affecting his own. It was suggested in the Report of the Royal Commission that £1,250,000 had been brought in during 1917/18 in respect of previous years and it was suggested that these were evasions which in some way or other had come to the knowledge of the Surveyors of Taxes in various parts of the country. I do not think their conclusion was right. It very frequently happens that a man receives special fees or commissions after he has made his return; he may have been elected a director of a company and thus had his income increased, thereby entailing a fresh assessment. Therefore the sum is due not so much to the discovery of evasions, as to the causes I am suggesting. I want to urge this recommendation on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the interests of all taxpayers, especially having regard to the fact that business men have got accustomed to rendering their accounts, and in the ordinary way send copies thereof to the Surveyor of Taxes, a custom which has caused the disappearance of the objections they formerly entertained to giving information to the Surveyor, and especially, too, as so many of the businesses are now company businesses and not carried on by private individuals. My last point is this. The Memorandum attached to the Revenue Bill stated that urgent problems relating to the question of double Income Tax within the Empire were dealt with under the Finance Act of last year. I want to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when that Bill was in Committee the hon. Member for Wimbledon and I called attention to a case in which judgment had just been given in the House of Lords, and we pointed out that the Finance Act of last year rode rough-shod over that decision. The effect of the Finance Act of last year was to give preference shareholders in companies which pay Colonial Income Tax a higher rate of dividend than the Articles of Association allow. The Lord Privy Seal then explained that the whole provision with regard to double Income Tax had been made after consultation with the
Colonies, and he would not like to effect any change without further consultation. He said:
The whole method embodied in the Bill was part of the agreement to which we came, and I do not think I can make any change at this stage of the Bill, or even this year; but I am ready to look into the matter again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1920; col. 1083, Vol. 132.]
I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will follow that up and see whether an Amendment cannot be introduced into this year's Bill confirming the judgment of the House of Lords in that particular case, and in that way meeting what I believe is the wish of all companies that pay Colonial Income Tax and have preference shareholders. I am afraid I have occupied a considerable amount of time on these details, but there are a good many of us who would like to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an explanation of the views of the Government with regard to many of the recommendations of the Income Tax Commissioners.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made a strong appeal for the inclusion in this Bill of the Revenue Bill dropped by the Government. I do not think, at any rate as regards the proposals to do away with the assessors and to a certain extent with the duties of the General Commissioners of Income Tax, his appeal will meet with the approval of the majority of the people who pay Income Tax in this country. The hon. Gentleman said he did not intend in any way to interfere with appeals which went to the General Commissioners, but then he went on to add that, under certain circumstances, he would interfere with those appeals—

Mr. HOLMES: No, no.

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, the hon. Gentleman said there were certain people who did not like their affairs investigated by the General Commissioners.

Mr. HOLMES: There is nothing to prevent certain assessments going on appeal to the Commissioners if the taxpayers so desire; it is only a question of certain assessments being agreed with the Surveyor and consequently never going before the Commissioners.

Sir F. BANBURY: At any rate it would be the thin edge of the wedge. The real reason why these changes were proposed
is to be found in the anxiety to appoint more officials and to give more importance to existing officials. I admit I am a General Commissioner myself, and with all due deference to the hon. Gentleman, I say I do not think the work is going to be done as cheaply under his proposal as it has been done in the past. I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to allude to a matter on which he and I have worked together in past years. I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Section 18 of this Bill. That, in my opinion, is very bad. It makes a tax retrospective. I am sorry the House is so empty at the moment. I want to draw attention to what is being contemplated by the Government under this Section. In the year 1843 an Act was passed, Section 122 of which provided that where a taxpayer found in any given year that his income fell below the amount on which he was assessed he should only pay on the reduced amount. Somewhere about the year 1908, when the present right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Clause was introduced into the Finance Bill doing away with that privilege. I objected to it at the time. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the reason for it. I pointed out that it had been in operation since 1843, and I wanted to know why he wished to do away with it. He replied that people were only just beginning to find out that the provision existed, and that they were taking advantage of it to the detriment of the Exchequer. Evidently it was a very just provision, and it ought not to have been altered. Somewhere about the year 1915 I managed to get the provision re-inserted in the Finance Act of that day, with this alteration, that it should only apply where the deficiency was more than 10 per cent. of the income. For instance, if a man's returned income was £3,000, and the actual income fell to £2,500, he obtained the remission; but if it fell to only £2,850 then he did not obtain it. Last year the Government brought in a Clause which repealed that provision, and the hon. Gentleman opposite and I opposed it, with the result that we thought we had succeeded in defeating the project of the Government, but on the Third Reading it was intimated to me that I had been mistaken, and that our proposal really had not repealed this particular Section.

Mr. HOLMES: I am afraid it was not quite so much in our favour. We actually put down a new Clause on Report, but that was defeated on a division.

Sir F. BANBURY: The fact remains, I do not know whether it is due to the Government not being quite so wide awake as usual, that the Clause did remain in last year's Finance Bill. I have the report of the case to which I have referred, deciding that the Clause was in the Act of 1920, and evidently the Government thought that it did so remain or they would not have deemed it necessary to bring in this Clause 18 to abolish it this year. The Government have, of course, a right to bring in a Clause to abolish anything, but they have no right to make it retrospective. The effect of this Clause is to impose retrospectively an additional tax. A large number of people have got this remission, and if we pass this Clause in this form they will have to pay an additional tax for the year which has just gone by. All the time I have been in this House I have opposed—always successfully I think—attempts at retrospective legislation. Legislation of that character in my opinion is absolutely wrong, but retrospective taxation is even worse. I think it would be a mistake in these days of heavy taxation, when people are unable to carry on their business on account of that taxation, not to give this remission. If the Government are going to take it away it should be agreed not to make it retrospective. It is a very bad habit of the Government—a habit which is growing—that when they are defeated in the courts of law they decline to take their defeat but bring in an Act of Parliament to alter the decision of the Court and to put themselves in the right. That is a practice which we ought to stop. This of course is a matter for the Committee stage, but I thought it advisable to raise it at the present moment in order that I should not have the unpleasant task of voting against the Government, or doing anything which they would dislike.
I want to call the attention of the House to the enormous taxation which is imposed by this Bill. I can confirm what my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) said with regard to the detrimental effect of this enormous taxation on the industries of the country. The only thing the Noble Lord said with which I disagree was when he rather
wandered from his subject and got on to the League of Nations. I have no faith in the League of Nations. I believe that "a strong man armed keepeth his palace." I rather objected to that part of my Noble Friend's speech in which he complained of the expenditure on the fighting services. In my opinion it is absolutely necessary that these fighting services should be maintained. I would like to call the attention of the House to a Paper issued sometime ago—a return relating to Imperial revenues for a certain number of years. I think it is a return of revenue and expenditure from the year 1819 to the year 1918, a period of one hundred years. In the last year before the War I find that the Civil Service expenditure, excluding Ireland, amounted to something like £41,000,000, and that of the Post Office to £17,268,000. According to the return issued this year, the Post Office expenditure was £67,000,000. It has grown up from £17,268,000 eleven years ago to £67,000,000, and, while we have to pay about £50,000,000 more, we are not to have any letters delivered or posted on Sundays. Apparently the more we are taxed the less facilities we get. That, in my opinion, is the wrong way about.
Then I see that the expenditure on the Civil Services amounts to no less than £327,503,000, as against £41,000,000 previously. That is where the economies ought to be. Unfortunately during and since the War, we have increased our Civil Service Departments and the number of our civil servants. We shall never get on to a safe financial basis until we begin by decreasing those Departments and diminishing the number of civil servants. It is no use saying, as has been said in the White Paper circulated with the Finance Bill, that orders have been given to them to exercise the most rigid economy. The orders ought to be that they should be done away with altogether, root and branch. Every Department that did not exist before the War ought to be scrapped. Unless that is done, we shall never get back to a position in which we can meet the expenses of the year without imposing upon the taxpayer a burden which he cannot bear. Even if we get back to an expenditure of £950,000,000 or £1,000,000,000—which I do not think is by any means certain—it is absurd to suppose that we can continue to carry that
burden. Trade will not stand it. You cannot go on taking from people 10s. of every sovereign that they get—and in saying that I am leaving out altogether any provision for Death Duties. I believe I am not exaggerating when I say that in many cases, out of every sovereign that a man receives, including provision for Death Duties, at least 12s. or 13s. is taken from him in the form of taxation, and that is without allowing anything for local rates. The effect is that no money can be saved, and if you cannot save money you will not have any capital to carry on the industries of the country.
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the Government should wake up to the fact that they must, for inevitable economic reasons, abandon all their ideas of social reform, health ministries, the enormous increase in education, and every other kind of increase of expenditure which possibly in an ideal state, or if we had not been at war, might have had some foundation, but which, in the present state of affairs, has no foundation at all. Unless something of that sort is done, and done at once, we shall be faced with an enormous diminuation in trade and with the fact that people will not be able to pay those taxes. I believe there is no question that at the present moment a large number of people are borrowing from their bankers to pay their taxes. That cannot go on. It is absurd to suppose that these people are to be taxed in order to pay a civil servant double what he had before the War. What we ought to insist upon is, not that the Government should issue White Papers saying that Departments will be asked to diminish as far as possible their expenditure, but that the Government should commence forthwith by abolishing all those Departments which were created since the outbreak of war, and will reduce to the smallest possible compass the old Departments. To-day I had a letter from a solicitor in which he refers to what takes place on the sale of land. This is what he says:
I am a strong opponent of all these ridiculous changes in the shape of Ministries and bureaucratic institutions. They are a curse to the carrying through of business. Only this morning I have received an intimation in connection with quite a small sale, from which it appears that some self-constituted official's assent is required some half a dozen times over in the matter of selling £300 or £400 worth of land. The sooner private individuals are allowed to
carry out their business without these bureaucratic interferences, the sooner will this country begin to improve in its financial position, and not until then.
That is a very sensible letter, and I commend it to the Financial Secretary, who, if he had been sitting on the other side of the House as he was two months ago, would have cheered my observations to the echo.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The subject before the House this afternoon is one in which I, with many other hon. and right hon. Friends, have taken since the commencement of this Parliament a very deep interest, namely, the question of State economy. I join with my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Bottomley) in expressing our appreciation of the fact that, in the Memorandum issued to-day as a Parliamentary Paper, we have a repentance of sorts. Late though it may be, it is distinctly welcome, as showing that the Government is at last awake to the agitation which has been continually developed, at any rate from this side of the House, from the very start of this Parliament, as to the urgent need of economy in our national finance. Some sentences in the Memorandum might have been taken from some of the speeches which have been made from time to time from this side of the House—

Sir F. BANBURY: And this side also.

Sir D. MACLEAN: From both sides, and especially from the seat which is occupied by my right hon. Friend. The real point of criticism which I and others have against the Memorandum is not its pious aspirations, but its complete lack of practical grip and determination in regard to the present situation. After stating that the revenue in 1922–23 is not likely to exceed £950,000,000, and that there will be for debt charges alone a total of no less than £465,000,000, it goes on to say that, making allowance for other special services which are indicated, there is a balance of £485,000,000 for all the ordinary supply services. But it goes on to say that the Estimate for these services for this present year is £603,000,000. I am quite certain that if those of us who are business men were dealing with our own affairs and were faced with that actuall position, what we should say would be, not that we would deal with it in 1922–23, but that we would deal with it here and now; that we cannot wait until we get departmental reports
about what might be done in 1922–23, but that we would get the heads of our Departments before us and point out to them that the position is so serious that not only shall we be unable to pay a dividend, but we shall be unable to pay our creditors—that we cannot raise any more money by the ordinary means, and that our only way of saving our business is to cut down expenses. The best form of taxation that the Government can go in for now is economy. That is a very old maxim. It goes back to the days of Rome. It was laid down by the financiers of those days, and here it is as fresh and necessary as ever it was.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can we have the name of the financier?

Sir D. MACLEAN: This Circular is nothing more than an elaboration of what the Prime Minister said nearly 18 months ago when he circularised the various Departments. He wound up with these words:
If they cannot reduce expenditure, they must make room for somebody else who can. That is the public temper, and it is right.
Admirable as those words were, however, I find nothing in this Circular but a hope that in 1922–23 we shall be face to face with a real reduction in national expenditure. I intend to vote for the Amendment which is now before the House, and I hope that everyone else who really means business will do the same.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: They will not.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Of course they will not. The aspect of the House is in itself sufficient evidence of what the House really means by economy. This is one of the most important subjects that we can possibly have before us, and the Benches are just as empty as they always are. This is no new phase. Right through this Parliament there has been the same absence of Members from these financial discussions. What is the good of Members going down and making speeches on their platforms and writing letters in answer to their constituents, saying that of course economy ought to be enforced? You can only enforce economy on the Government by voting against them. It is not the least use talking about it; you must vote against them. We want to get them really to come down to business. The situation at the present moment is so serious that only drastic methods of that kind will be of the least avail. The strike is not
yet ended. Suppose that by good fortune—let us hope it may be so—the miners by the end of next week determine to go to work again. What is going to be the position? Weeks must elapse before the industries of the country can commence to do business once more. We are face to face in all that remains of this year with an industrial position which will not produce revenue for the Government anyhow, and the hopes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of revenue amounting to £900,000,000 cannot be realised. That money cannot be raised this year. People cannot pay it. I make that prophecy with the most profound regret. You cannot raise taxes out of money and income which are non-existent. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) said just now, what I know of my own personal knowledge to be the case, that business men all over the country are going to the banks to arrange further overdrafts to pay their taxes, and I know of instance after instance where the banks have refused it to men whose record is impeccable in all financial respects. The money the Government hoped to raise in their Budget estimate cannot be fulfilled this year. That being the case, what is the use of producing a Circular which hopes that in 1922–23 reductions will be effected? That is not business at all and it must inevitably lead to disaster.
I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury must have taken an active part in the production of these useful papers. For the first time we have been placed in possession of a clear comparative statement of figures in a form which I find extremely useful. Following up a point made by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) on the subject of the expenditure of the Government on the fighting forces, I should like to draw attention to figures which are positively staggering. With all the interest and attention which I have paid to them I was not prepared for the total. Taking the Army first and the years 1919–20 and 1920–21, and the estimated expenditure for 1921–22—which exclude, of course, the years of the War and bring in only the expenditure which is authorised by this present House—there has been and is estimated to be spent £860,273,000, compared with an estimate of the previous years which certainly would not have amounted
to more than £120,000,000. Taking the Navy for these same three years, there has been an expenditure of £384,724,000, while the Air Force amounts to £56,000,000, £25,000,000, and another £19,000,000. The total in these three years on the fighting forces only is £1,345,847,363. How can the country stagger along under such a burden? It is impossible. We cannot be arming against Germany, France, Japan, or America. They are quite out of the range of belligerents. Whom, then, are we arming against, and, if we are not arming against the nations I have named, for what is the money being poured out? In the Civil Services we find the same story. I have not had time to pick the figures out, but I hope hon. Members, the country, and the Press will take this return and study it, and see what the actual position is. I have been quoting the gross figures. I will give the hon. Gentleman the odd £345,000,000, if he likes, for Appropriations-in-Aid. Many of them are really nothing but savings in one Department which, if made, should have fallen into the general Exchequer and not been applied to a reduction of the cost of these services. But there it stands, a ghastly monument of gross extravagance and unforgiveable carelessness. And what is the result of it? It has produced this memorandum for 1922–23. We know what a circular has produced before. The Prime Minister himself has said that if they cannot reduce expenditure they must make room for someone else who can. How many of the Civil Service have gone?
Let me turn back again to this admirable return. In the year 1914 we had 278,000 civil servants. On 1st April, 1921, the War having ceased in November, 1918, we had still 366,894 civil servants and staffs of Government Departments. The only reduction they succeeded in making in all those years is one of 51,000. That is the test of what the Government really are doing. Over and over again it has been said from this box that if you reduce the staffs of Government Departments, if indeed you abolish the Departments, all the result is that they go into some other Department. What the country is demanding is that there should not be mere circulars issued, but that economies should be dealt with in such a manner that from the top to the bottom of every Government Department
they should know that unless economies are effected they will go. I am quite certain that when the country has a chance of dealing with those who have been unfaithful in this matter, irrespective of which side of the House they sit on, they will go too. There are many political issues before the country at present of deep and vital importance, but there is no issue which so deeply concerns the people as this one. It may not be very ideal, but that is the fact, and no one who goes about the country with his eyes and ears open can come to any other conclusion than that. Of all the record of failures of this Government, and they are great and many, this is the one in which they have most grossly failed, and the one in which they could have made, if they had) attempted it, the greatest success.

Mr. WATERSON: In listening to the speech of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), I was rather puzzled as to whether he was speaking to the terms of his Amendment or whether he was speaking in support of the Finance Bill. The matter that he laid before us in order that we may come to some decision was certainly of such a weak nature that something more convincing will have to come forward from his friends if he is anxious to get much support from the House. He complained very strongly as to the terrible amount of the Budget. We shall all agree that economy must take place. But he failed to put before the House where the economy should be made. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) has very well suggested one or two places at least where such economy could take place. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who is not extremely optimistic as far as the future of the League of Nations is concerned, was something in the same category as the hon. Member for South Hackney. Whilst they were prepared to condemn the Government for its vast expenditure upon many things, they failed absoluely to tell us where economy should take place. We who represent the working-class thought and aspirations to the best of our ability are anxious to know what these Gentlemen are prepared to submit in their demand for economy. If it is that economy should take place in connection with the forces and powers that make for the devastation of life and property they may rest assured that from
this side of the House they will have hearty support, but as the right hon. Baronet has mentioned that education and social reform must not go forward, we feel, because we know the conditions of many of the toiling masses of the country, that we cannot allow economy to take place in that direction, because in our judgment it is really false economy. My Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) desired to press home to the House the point of economy. The House ought to appreciate the point of view that he expressed relative to foreign policy. He very wisely said, and perfectly correctly, that our foreign policy reacts at home. If only the Government could see its way clear to stir up interest in the hearts of the British people, and a firm belief in the establishment and realisation in the League of Nations, just as they have placarded the walls in order to defeat the miners, it would be money well spent.
6.0 P.M.
We had a Budget introduced by a new Minister or, rather, by an old Minister in a new office. Although it is a new Budget it consists of old measures. It is a Budget coming within the scope of two men, but composed of old measures that have appertained to Budgets of many years. There has been the usual playing with taxes on cigars and sparkling wines, which do not in the least disturb the equanimity of those who have done very well out of the War. Those taxes do not cause them to have one hour's less rest because they have either reduced or increased the consumption of those articles. One had hoped that the Government would have brought forward some scheme, in the third year after the War, to relieve us from the great millstone of debt which hangs round the neck of the nation. I remember a speech being delivered in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) two years ago, when he said that it could not be expected that the people of the present age should bear the entire burden of the late War. Evidently it is his opinion that posterity should find the necessary wherewithal for what one might term the sins of the present age. It would be wiser to make a bold bid and a courageous attempt to remove the deadweight of debt by a quicker and more lightning process than we have hitherto experienced, and one regrets that the Government has not considered that question. The
Budget is not relieving the already hard-pressed one iota. In looking through the OFFICIAL REPORT I noticed that on the 24th April last my right hon. Friend the present President of the Board of Trade in reply to a question said that in 1919–20 the estimated tax revenue derived from England and Wales amounted to a contribution per head of the population of £22 13s. I ask the House to consider the effect of that taxation upon people who to-day are suffering from indirect taxation and are unemployed. It is certainly a crushing burden upon the toiling masses, who so long as the present system of taxation is in operation will have to carry the greatest burden. One had hoped for great things from the new Minister in devising some new methods for removing the great millstone of debt from our necks, but I am afraid that we have looked into the darkness and we are now lost in the haze.
It is admitted that tea and sugar are articles of every day necessity in the home, and from the taxation on these articles the Government is deriving vast sums of money. In looking through the statistics of one firm of this country I noticed that out of a trade of £15,269,734 they have paid duty of £3,491,951 which, roughly speaking, is a tax of 10s. per cwt. In tea duty they have paid £1,777,661 on a turnover of £5,453,557, so that 2½d. in every shilling goes in taxation so far as sugar is concerned and 3½d. in every shilling goes in taxation on tea. There are many people to-day not only in the middle classes but in the poorer classes who cannot make ends meet, and they have to live practically on tea, sugar, and bread, and these people are taxed to the vast amount I have mentioned. That is extremely unfair, because there are other classes in the community who could pay the tax far easier. Looking through a table dealing with indirect taxation and how it affects the cost of living, I find that in 1914 the indirect taxation upon food was £10,903,000 and in 1921 it was £53,300,000. In 1914 the taxation upon drink was £43,268,000 and in 1921 it was £209,870,000. Take tobacco, which is well used by the working classes. In 1914 the Government derived £18,263,000 in taxation upon tobacco, and in 1921 they derived £66,100,000. There was no enter-
tainments tax in 1914, but to-day the Government are receiving £11,000,000 from that indirect source of taxation.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a class of people who are hit very hard. I refer to those people who may be at the moment enjoying an income of between £600 and £800 a year. Many of us feel that the Income Tax basis acts unduly hard upon such people. Some of us believe that there ought to be a more graduated system of Income Tax. The minimum upon which a man can clear himself so far as taxation is concerned is well known. Above that amount, say, up to £1,000 a year, why could not there be an ascending scale, say, of £200 steps, and instead of a man being suddenly taxed at 6s. in the pound Income Tax we might proceed by £200 steps by a graduated tax scale of 3s., 4s., 5s., and 6s., until the Super-tax is reached. That would remove hardship on a goodly number of people known as the middle class, and in the long run it would be a paying proposition for the Government to accept. I regret that the Government has not introduced in the Finance Bill some relief for the widower. Last year they were good enough to make an allowance to a widower who had a relative looking after his home and his children, but the widower who was not fortunate enough to have a relative but who had to employ another person to act as housekeeper was not allowed exemption. I think the House will agree that that is a hardship. If a person is called in by a widower to look after his children—children are an asset of any nation and should not be neglected—there should not be this line of demarcation that was set up by the Government in last year's Budget.
If we are to have an adequate idea of the burden of the taxpayer we must turn to the estimates of revenue of £1,058,000,000 and the estimate of expenditure of £974,028,000, which leaves a surplus of £84,437,000 for contingencies. That surplus, according to past experience, is subject to charges not yet ascertained, If we trace these figures and how they are derived we shall have some idea as to the burden which is going to fall upon the taxpayer. In addition, there are the loans to Allies and Dominions, and the money owing between ourselves, France, Russia, Italy and America. On this side of the House we have suggested for several years a way
in which this heavy load could be removed. The House has repeatedly turned down the suggestion of a capital levy, but we still feel strongly that a capital levy should be adopted. If the House will not have a capital levy, I ask whether it will consider the advisability of accepting its own Committee's Report, the Committee which was specifically set up to deal with the question of war wealth taxation. It will be remembered that on the 8th of June last year the House talked upon this matter because a Motion had been tabled by one of my hon. Friends.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) gave startling figures as to the cost of the Army, Navy and Air Force during the past three years. I may refer to the figures which came before that Committee which were given by Inland Revenue Authorities and were of such a startling character that this House cannot go on much longer repudiating the statements and evidence given on that occasion. These figures given not by outside authorities, but by Inland Revenue officials have not been repudiated. We were told that war time increases of wealth amounted to something like £4,000,000,000, and that 70 per cent. of that £4,000,000,000 belonged to 1 per cent. of the population. We were also told that during the War period 280 persons added an aggregate of £200,000,000, or an average of £700,000 each, to their fortunes; 200 persons added an aggregate of £64,000,000, and 565 added an aggregate of £129,000,000, or an average of £230,000 each. In addition, 80,000 people came up from below the £5,000 limit. The number of people at that time whose capital was between £3,000 and £5,000 was put at 170,000. Compare with these figures the conditions prevailing according to the Government report in 1908–09. At that time 12 persons in every 100 took half of the national income, and two persons in every 100 took two-thirds of the whole accumulated revenue.
I have enumerated some points of the Budget in which I have been interested with the view of giving the Government some idea as to the class of Amendments which may be drafted, and which will have to be debated at the proper time, but I feel justified in saying a word or two upon the Corporation Profits Tax. During the Debate 12 months ago I had the audacity, I believe the Prime
Minister would say, to foreshadow what the result of the Corporation Profits Tax would be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year provided in his Estimate for £3,000,000 from that tax. The result was that £650,000 came in. We have a right to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reason for having such a large estimate foreshadowed with such a small result, and also how can he justify the estimate of £30,000,000 as the produce of this tax during the current year. One could reiterate this afternoon almost every argument which was used against the tax last year, but it would be unwise and unjustifiable, but in dealing with this question I may refer to the conclusion of an eminent lawyer's opinion, because it affects the application of this tax to the co-operative movement in this country:
The Corporation Tax, as a whole, is undoubtedly open to the objection that it is a species of Income Tax which falls even upon the smallest income without any possibility of its being recovered by those whose incomes are below the exemption limit; but the members of co-operative societies appear to have a ground for objection which goes beyond that of the small shareholder in a company. The shareholder contributes capital on which he receives a return which has been earned by the capital. The members of a co-operative society who invest money in that society are paid interest which is contributed by themselves in accordance with their mutual arrangement, and there appears to be a fundamental distinction as between the two cases.
I expressed regret during the discussion on Ways and Means that the Government were re-introducing this tax this year. It is well known that many business firms are complaining bitterly of the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this respect, because they regard it as a sinister blow to industry. I express regret not only for myself but on behalf of 4,500,000 individuals in the country. I suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department has been rather busy with the various forms of protest in this matter which the Department has been receiving from these particular people. There is in our minds no room for doubt as to the ostensible object for which this tax has been deliberately forced upon a band of mutual traders. It is apparent to any of us who have given any serious thought and attention to it. The co-operative movement, it has been said, usually goes completely free of taxes. I do not think that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would put up an argument of that kind, because it is totally untrue. Even if it could be argued that the tax might fairly be applied to various corporations registered under the Companies Act, still it would be grossly unfair to levy that tax upon mutual trading societies which have been established under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. The ramifications of such societies are entirely different and their construction is entirely different from that of any private company in existence. The whole of their operations are on a different principle. Private companies exist for the specific purpose of private profit, whereas these organisations are established for the ostensible object of mutual help and not for private gain.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Baldwin), when Financial Secretary to the Treasury, stated last Session that he hoped at no distant date that this tax might take the place of the Excess Profits Duty, but if the Excess Profits Duty is to be a jumping-off ground for the imposition of the Corporation Profits Tax then you must logically exclude the co-operative societies from the scope of this tax because they are not profit-making associations, and if we are to compare the results of co-operative trading during the War with those of private companies and private trading organisations, I suggest that greater benefit has been given to the country by the co-operative movement than was rendered by the private trading organisations. I hope when the Debate on the Clause takes place to get the opinion of the House that this Corporation Profits Tax should not be applied to co-operative societies. In our opinion it is an illegal practice and is not logical. We do not ask for any privilege or preferential treatment, but simply for justice and equity. Income Tax is based on income and cannot be based on the savings of an individual, and Income Tax should be applied to individuals according to the amount of their income and not because of their membership of an association with the ostensible intention of giving mutual help. Mutual trading associations have always been exempt, and it is to be regretted that only twelve months ago that old principle was violated. Therefore I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his
way to let us know first why the Corporation Profits Tax brought in such a small amount during the past year and also how or where does he expect to get £30,000,000 from this tax during the present year. I trust that he will also give us satisfaction so far as the co-operative movement is concerned by standing by the majority of his predecessors and exempting the co-operative movement from the operation of this tax.

Sir WILLIAM PEARCE: I confess that the balance sheet of this Budget gives me a great deal of anxiety. Before I deal with it I wish to refer briefly to the remarks of the last speaker. I do not think it is quite realised how much education costs the country. It comes home to me because in my early days I happened to be associated with a non-provided school. In those days we used to charge a 6d. fee and we got a Government Grant equivalent to about 6d. per week. The 1s. covered the cost of education in the school. To-day every child who goes into an elementary school costs the Government and the rates 6s. per week. I do not think the working classes realise the expense that our system of education entails. I am not for a minute suggesting that it should be reduced, for nobody puts a higher value on education than myself. If the working classes realised what the cost was it would, perhaps, do something to reconcile them to paying taxes on tea, tobacco, and sugar. I have said that I feel extremely anxious about the balance sheet of the present Budget. I was anxious when the Budget was introduced, and I do not think that the situation can by any means be said to have improved since then. In fact, it is very much worse. I am inclined to think that the expenditure of the Government is likely to go up and that the receipts are likely to be less. When the Budget was introduced I said that the most astonishing feature of it was that the Government should expect to raise £1,000,000,000 out of the taxation of a country which was passing through the most desperate financial crisis within the memory of anyone in this House. To-day every industry is fighting for its life. It was a great tribute to the resources and the capacity of the country that the Government should even have imagined that they could raise £1,000,000,000 in taxation.
Let us look at the figures. On the receipts side Customs and Excise stand at £323,000,000. Those receipts must depend on the purchasing power of the population. I have been in works in London to-day. Some are closed and some are working only 30 or 40 per cent. of their full time. The aggregate wages paid throughout the country must be very much reduced in the next financial year, and it follows as certainly as night follows the day that the recepits from Customs and Excise must diminish. Income Tax and Super-tax are estimated at £410,000,000; Excess Profits Duty. £120,000,000, and Corporation Profits Tax £30,000,000. It is all very well to estimate those figures, but will industry be able to pay them? To-day many industries are obliged to borrow from their bankers in order to pay taxes, and the situation is getting very much worse. People are not examining their accounts to-day to see how much profit they are making, but to see how big are their losses. Unfortunately, that fact is applicable to the whole of the country. It is the rarest thing in the world to find anyone who is an optimist with regard to the next few months, as far as the industrial position is concerned. I feel very strongly that I would not like to be responsible for the receipts side of this Finance Bill. Turn to the other side of the account. Railway agreements are put down for £30,000,000. We have heard of £60,000,000 having to be paid. I do not know whether it is to be paid this year or not, and it would be useless to know whether the £60,000,000 is to come into the present Budget. The deficiency on the Coal Account is given as £3,000,000. I should think that that is very far from the correct figure. The Ministry of Labour is down for £18,000,000. I should think that figure also is likely to be increased. I often wonder whether the House has fully considered what the Ministry of Labour is costing, how much it is likely to cost, and whether from a national point of view the money likely to be expended by the Ministry is worth while. Take Unemployment Insurance. It is not a very great resource for the working man when he gets it. If my recollection is right, the Labour party as a body voted against the Bill. At present you have 12,000,000 people eligible for unemployment benefit. That means that there are 12,000,000 cards to be kept.
There must be an enormous staff, an enormous record office and an enormous amount of administration. Benefit is to be paid through the employment exchanges. That will mean employment exchange buildings throughout the country.
If we are ever to get back to anything like pre-War expenditure, ought we not to consider most carefully whether the Ministry of Labour can be afforded? After all, I am afraid I am very pessimistic. I hope I am not right, but if I am right in my prognostications, these are things that will make the Government economise. If expenditure is more this year and the receipts are less than anticipated, what are the Government going to do? I cannot imagine that they will have recourse to the printing press. Our debt charges to-day are nearly £350,000,000, and they are standing charges. It would be midsummer madness to go further into debt. If I am unfortunately right in my forecast and this balance-sheet turns out much less favourably than the figures indicate, that will perforce make the Government economise in many of the directions indicated this afternoon. I meet many people who are authorities in industry. The House hardly realises the depth and magnitude of the anxiety due to the present industrial crisis. It has been made much worse by the coal trouble. If the dispute continues, it will be not merely deplorable but will make one almost despair. I am not speaking from the miners' point of view or the mine-owners' point of view, but from the national point of view, the point of view of all of us. The position is bad enough at present, and if the coal trouble is not stopped the figures of our balance-sheet will be very much worse than the prognostications I have felt obliged to make.

Mr. FILDES: I must confess to a feeling of despondency at the lamentable inability of the Government to deal with the question of restricting expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has succeeded the Lord Privy Seal. It is within the recollection of the House that protests were made to his predecessor again and again with regard to the Excess Profits Duty. Those protests were for long ignored. Prophecies were made as to what would follow if the Govern-
ment persisted in their financial conduct and those prophecies have already materialised. I am sorry that the Government seem to fail to appreciate the intensity of the feeling amongst the commercial classes in the country, and that the Government do not recognise the seriousness of the situation caused by the present enormous taxation. Our trades are being handicapped out of the competitive markets of the world. I would appeal to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to take more notice of representations made to him by leaders in industry and commerce. I do not say from where the remedy is to come. I can only suggest to the Government that they should delay the infliction of this taxation upon the community, because in the present state of our industries we cannot afford to make the contributions that the Government are demanding. The Excess Profits Tax was a bad tax, and when Members of this House become fully acquainted with the details and the incidence of the Corporation Profits Tax they will be surprised. The Corporation Profits Tax is a hopelessly bad tax from every point of view. It places one class of investor at an advantage as against another class of investor. It strikes at the man who is dependent for his dividends on the proceeds of an ordinary share and places in an armour-plated position the man who takes least risk in a business enterprise. I have no sympathy at all with the points raised in regard to the Corporations Tax and the co-operative societies. The co-operative societies should pay a greater contribution than they do at present to the finances of our country. I again appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider more seriously than apparently he has done the serious state in which the industries of the country have been placed largely by the extravagance and the folly characteristic of many of the things the Government has been responsible for. We must leave our industries with more money to play with. The Government have been bleeding the trade of the country white, and it is no exaggeration and no figure of speech to say that scores and hundreds of manufacturers and merchants in this country have been borrowing money from the banks to pay taxes. When money is handed over to the Government in cir-
cumstances like these, I submit the expenditure of that money should be subject to the most sedulous consideration and care on the part of the Government. I do not like the flippancy and the indifferent aspect which characterises the Treasury Bench when these matters come up. They are serious matters, for the future of the country and the future of the whole of the working classes depends upon the view the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes, and the courage with which he is going to say, "I am going to be master in my own house; these expenses must be cut down, or the Chancellor will resign." I believe he would have the country behind him if he would deliberately say he was going to resign rather than be a party to bringing upon this country what I regard as a great disaster, and the ruin of many of our industries.

Mr. WISE: I have not had the opportunity of being in the House during the whole of this Debate, and I do not know whether the letter which appears in the "Times" to-day from Lord Inchcape has yet been referred to. It is a very important letter, and the writer is a very important business man. The letter is headed, "Where are we going?" "Sequels to Industrial Paralysis," "Exports and Employment." The gist of the letter is that our imports and exports, compared with the pre-War days and reducing the prices to pre-War figures, have gone down considerably. Ours is a peculiar country. Our country lives on its exports, and you cannot compare it with any other country in the world. Some hon. Members have compared it to France and Italy and even Germany, but we are dependent on our exports, and any small interference with our exports must damage our industrial trade. There has also been published an appeal by bankers of the United Kingdom. That appeal is fairly long, but there is one very important passage in it which states:
The burden of taxation can only be lightened if the necessity for public economy is resolutely faced. The present rate of national expenditure threatens to cripple the country's resources, and impair its credit abroad. In our judgment it is more than the commercial community can stand, more than the capacity of the nation can afford, and more than, when proper economy is effected, the nation need he asked to sustain.
That letter is signed by the principal bankers in the City of London, and the Government should take notice of it. These are the traders. These are the people we depend on to get our taxation. We all agree that the coal crisis is bad, but I have had an opportunity of meeting one or two people connected with the steel industry in the North of England, and what was far worse than the coal position itself was their hesitation as to whether or not, when the coal dispute was over, these steel works would start again. With regard to the external debt referred to by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), I consider at the moment the external debt involves a far bigger policy than the internal debt, and a policy which should be settled. I contend we are in the hands of the United States of America, and if some scheme could be drawn up whereby a favoured nation commission either on securities or exports to America would be given to manufacturers or investors, it would be a benefit to our country, because it would help to pay off our large indebtedness to America. I should like the Government to consider something of that nature, either in the shape of freights on the manufactured goods, or in the shape of commission on securities. I also expressly draw their attention to the letter of Lord Inchcape, and to the manifesto from the bankers of the City of London.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be replying early in this Debate, I have no desire to detain the House unduly in the discussion of the Finance Bill now before it. After all, in the Committee stage of the Bill we shall get an opportunity of directing attention to all the particular changes which we wish to see introduced, and I therefore propose to confine myself to two broad aspects of the Finance Bill, and to suggest that this is an occasion on which the Government should do something to meet the case we are trying to present from this side of the House. The first matter to which I desire to direct attention is the structure of the Income Tax, and in the second place I propose to say something about the Corporation Profits Tax and its incidence as regards co-operative societies. Taking the general question of the structure of the Income Tax as laid down by
the Finance Bill which we are now discussing, and as amended within recent years more particularly since the Royal Commission made its Report, we have in this country married couples with, say, three children who are entitled to the usual exemptions and abatements and who may enjoy an income of very nearly £400 per annum before they are liable for a copper of Income Tax at all. All hon. Members will agree that is a very striking state of affairs, having regard to the existing condition of national finance and having regard to the importance which is rightly attached to direct as opposed to indirect taxation. While we recognise that the Government undoubtedly adopted many of the immediate proposals of the Royal Commission on Income Tax we still feel that the structure is capable of very great improvements.
I am going to suggest two propositions with which hon. Members will probably agree. First we should try to make the payment of Income Tax as easy as we possibly can for the earning section of the people—that is the section of the people who have limited incomes, and require for the most part to earn them—and secondly we should be perfectly sure that we are getting all the revenue under the tax to which we are entitled in law, according to the general scheme of the taxes of this country. If we take the case of the range of incomes between £400 and £2,000 per annum it will be agreed that covers a very considerable section of the British people and it covers that section which is carrying the burden of the work and the enterprise in many of the things upon which this country primarily and mainly depends. More and more as we examine the exemptions and abatements in this range of incomes, we come to the conclusion that there is not to begin with sufficient differentiation between earned and unearned income, and in the second place we do not make the full concessions we ought to make for people within that range or scale of income in this country. I am going to plead with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some reconstruction of the abatements or the general incidence of the Income Tax between £400 and £2,000 per annum.
7.0 P.M.
The other point to which I wish to direct attention is far more important. Many hon. Members say that so complete and
so perfect is the Income Tax machinery of Great Britain that from year to year we lose very little of the revenue to which we are entitled. What are the real facts? The Income Tax surveyors—who are perfectly impartial in matters of this kind—in giving evidence before the Royal Commission said that, in their judgment, during about four years of the War, in Income Tax, Super-tax, and Excess Profits Duty, this country lost at least £100,000,000 to which it was entitled as the law stood from time to time. That estimate of evasion and loss was regarded as a very moderate and conservative estimate by every student who had applied his mind to this problem. Not only that, but excluding for the moment the immediate exceptional circumstances which existed during the War, chambers of commerce and other authorities on Income Tax, both from the point of view of the business community and from the administrative standpoint, have suggested that we were losing anything between £5,000,000 and £10,000,000 per annum. The loss of a sum of this kind is not one which the country can bear at the present time, and, even if it were so, that would be an altogether irrelevant consideration. The really relevant consideration is to make perfectly certain that the people do their duty according to the Income Tax law. If they do not do that duty then there will be general agreement that an undue and unfair burden is imposed upon the honest section of the community who make fair returns and pay the tax for which they are liable. I know this is not a popular doctrine, but the Government, in my judgment, have run away from the proposals of the Revenue Bill. It would be irrelevant to argue the proposals of that Bill this afternoon, but it is relevant to plead that we must adopt at the earliest possible moment the safeguard of the improved methods in the collection of Income Tax which the Royal Commission laid down. It is very important that these improvements should be introduced at a time when large sections of people, especially up to £2,000 per annum, are finding it very difficult indeed to meet the Income Tax demand. I therefore hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be sympathetic in his attitude towards the request made by the hon. Member for North-East Derby-
shire (Mr. Holmes) that he should incorporate in the Finance Bill, by way of an Amendment in Committee, the Clause which should have figured in the Revenue Bill relevant to this proposal, and which would give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission for the prevention of fraud and evasion.
The other point to which I wish to direct attention is the Corporation Profits Tax and its incidence on co-operative societies. Many of us on this side of the House never approved of the Corporation Profits Tax at all. I am safe in saying that the majority of the members of the Royal Commission on Income Tax would not recommend a duty of this kind. We come back, in all discussions on the Finance Bill, to abiding principles of taxation, and the principle on which there is hardly any dispute at all is that which lays down that taxes should be few and simple. The introduction of the Corporation Profits Tax was, in the judgment of many members of the Royal Commission, the introduction of nothing more than a refinement of Income Tax. It was the wrong time to multiply taxes. In any case taxes should fall as far as possible on results; that is, after business duty had been discharged there remained for the individual a balance or residue of which the State was rightly entitled, in the present circumstances, to take toll. The Corporation Profits Tax violates that principle. I think it is unnecessary, and all the revenue, amounting to a beggarly £30,000,000 as compared with £400,000,000 of Income Tax, could be obtained by a quite fair and quite reasonable readjustment of Income Tax and Super-tax which would be very much better than the introduction of this exceptional and additional device.
Coming to the narrow point of the application of this duty to co-operative societies may I make this very general statement to-day, in the hope that when the real conflict comes, as it will come in the Committee stage of this Bill, we may get consideration of a kind different from the consideration that was given to this subject in the House of Commons a year ago? On that occasion many hon. Members pleaded that the co-operative societies were not making a fair contribution. [HON. MBMBEES: "Hear hear!"] They said that in the light of all the circumstances which had come to their knowledge this application of the Cor-
poration Profits Tax was perfectly fair, and they thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day was correct in arguing that the undistributed portion of the surplus arising from the mutual trading of these societies was something that should be regarded as a profit and should be amenable to this particular form of taxation.
I would respectfully plead with the right hon. Gentleman that the experience of the past year has made it perfectly plain that there is no more case to-night, than there was a year ago for the illogical device that was then introduced. The House of Commons, in fact, applied the Corporation Profits Tax to the undistributed portion of the surplus arising from the mutual trading of these societies. No Member ever disputed the proposition that this undistributed portion of the surplus came from the very same fund which resulted from the mutual trading and that, as the results of mutual trading were exempted from the tax, there was really no case at all for applying it to that portion which the societies held for any temporary or permanent purposes. Quite apart altogether from the very illogical nature of that device, however, it would be far better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt proposals which are being made, if not officially at all events unofficially by those who have the interests of the co-operative societies at heart. Last year, for a variety of reasons which I will not go into now, we were precluded from making a constructive suggestion of an alternative character to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am going to take the risk this afternoon of suggesting that he might very well withdraw the Corporation Profits Tax as applied to that undistributed portion of the surplus based on mutual trading and impose his tax on at least four other heads, which are so far covered at the present time, and might perhaps be completely covered if he were prepared to entertain the suggestion. I refer, first of all, to the profits on the non-mutual trading of the co-operative societies. Secondly, to the interest on the share capital of the members. In the third place, to the return on investments held outside the co-operative movement; and, fourthly, to what is generally called the earnings of the reserve fund. There is down on record, in what I hope is a very clear and simple form, a definite
proposal which has been submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to his predecessor in writing within recent times. I am optimistic enough to believe, in the course of this Debate, that that programme would be accepted by the great body of co-operative opinion in this country, and it would form a very much better basis of taxation than the illogical scheme now in operation, which was recommended by practically no one and which has created a great deal of ill-feeling and prejudice in the co-operative movement.
These are the two suggestions which I venture to make in connection with the Finance Bill. I would only add this, in conclusion, in the light of some argument which has been raised by hon. Members in other parts of the House. I agree entirely, speaking from the Labour Benches, that we require most drastic economies. We require to cut down, especially, the £207,000,000 provided for naval and military expenditure and preparation, but we cannot afford to economise in the wrong way upon those forces or elements in the State which are necessary to our industrial and commercial development. That is just the issue on which I join with hon. Members who have selected education and other subjects for the purpose of drastic reductions in expenditure. It is true to say that there are continental and other competitors of this country who are gaining the markets which we formerly enjoyed because of the attention which even under present circumstances they are devoting to technical and other education. My question is plainly this: Can we afford to take the risk of neglecting a proper, a wise, and a remunerative expenditure in that direction? We can only take that risk if we are prepared to see world markets go, and we should make every effort at the present time, while economising in other directions, at least to provide that those services which are going to minister to our economic efficiency at home and help us to recover our world markets should be safeguarded and developed.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I do not propose to enter into any arguments about co-operative societies, because it would take a very long time, and they have been very frequently discussed here. All I can say is that the ordinary citizen only desires perfect equality. In his shops,
his trading, his soap works, shipping, coalmines, and everything else, he desires that there should be no priority or preference given to the co-operative societies, but that they should be dealt with equally and fairly. Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, I was a member of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, and I join with him in great regret that the Government have not seen their way to complete the Revenue Bill which they brought in. It would have assisted them very materially. All the got-up Press agitation was a ridiculous proposition, and everything that was necessary for the safeguarding of the ordinary interests of the merchant was contained in the recommendations included in the Bill. I have not the slightest doubt that the reason why the Bill was withdrawn—and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not rebut it—was that it was going to create a loss. It was going, by taking away the three years' average and adopting an average of one year, to create a position in which he would not have had anything like the Income Tax to collect that he has had under the regulations that now exist. I see he is carrying that out by the provisions in the Bill as regards retrospective legislation in connection with Sections 43 and 44. He is going to keep himself pretty well covered and to get the benefit of the average in regard to the War profits for the purpose of increasing his revenue for this year. I am quite certain he will want it, and therefore I suppose we ought not to grudge it. If he has dropped the Revenue Bill, he has put in these Clauses in order that he may have the full benefit of the averages of the profits made during the War.
One thing mentioned by the hon. Member opposite with regard to casual profits does require some little elucidation. I quite agree with him that if the provisions as to casual profits which were in the Revenue Bill and were in the recommendations of the Royal Commission had been enforced there would have been very large sums which would have come in for the purpose of relieving expenditure. I remember that I raised the point on the Royal Commission, with others, and we got from the revenue authorities the statement that there were more casual losses than casual profits.
That was rather early on, but we know that during the War the casual profits were enormous. Men in one trade went into another, and in cotton, corn, hemp and other things made enormous sums of money on which they never paid any Income Tax or Super-tax, and were often in competition with the more or less honest men who paid their taxes as and when and as regularly as they could. It is probable that now the casual profits will not come in so well. There may be casual losses which may further reduce the income of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but still there is the fact that these casual profits were the profits which created the profiteer and created the scandal about which the Labour Members have so much to say and with regard to which we thoroughly agree. Enormous profits were made in speculation and expended in great show, and they never paid any Income Tax or Super-tax, and I warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he now wants to take them, he may find he may have to pay casual losses.
I heard a good deal of cheering of the statement that the prosperity of this country arose from its exports, but I am one of those who do not quite agree with that. I think our prosperity arises from the British Empire, in this way, that the men from Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, Argentina, and British men all over the world come home and bring their wealth home, from Burma and such places, to spend and to invest. I think all this forms a great part of the wealth of this country, and our own exports, which are really coal only and our manufactures arising from the coal, are small in comparison with the industries of the Empire, the labour of the Empire, and the exports of the Empire, the good will of these people who live abroad. We ought to consider that, and not to have this feeling always in existence that the only person, who produces prosperity is the exporter. There are plenty of others as well. The principal matter to which I want to refer is the question of the abolition of Excess Profits Duty, which is coming on this year, and the fact that in the Vote Office to-day we were able to get the Government proposals for the valuation of stocks. I am not going to find fault with anything which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives us. In the old Latin phrase, I always respect those
who give us a free gift, but I think it was a little bit hard that a matter of this importance, dealing with the valuation of stocks in connection with the abolition of the Excess Profits Duty, was not in the hands of Members earlier, so that we could consult the big traders interested beforehand.
I am one of those who are delighted that the Excess Profits Duty is gone. A more infamous, a more unenlightened, extravagant, ruinous, demoralising Measure has never been brought before the country. It has created, I was going to say, more theft, but more peculation in the shape of a man charging expenses at £50 when they ought to be only £5, and things of that description, than any Measure that could possibly have been devised. It has gone now, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the 6s. Income Tax which he will get on those profits, especially as they will not be subject to the excessive depreciation and allowances which were made in the Excess Profits Duty, but will be on the ordinary lines of the Inland Revenue, will get a very handsome sum out of those profits, notwithstanding the fact that the Excess Profits Duty is gone. I always believed that the ordinary Income Tax would have been more moral and would have produced more at 6s. in the £ than the 40 per cent. Excess Profits Duty which was at one time charged. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to understand that his proposals in connection with the valuation of stocks will have to be considered by the various bodies interested and that we may desire to see him and ask him for certain amendments, as there is no doubt there are great hardships involved. A man dies, having paid Excess Profits Duty, and his son succeeds but cannot get the duty back on his father's estate, and there are various other things in connection with this Measure which will require close study in order to make them fair and equitable. Amalgamations may have taken place, but there is the fact that up to the 31st August there is power to value stocks, as well as apparently the power for two years afterwards to consider revaluing the stocks, so that there will be a means of every firm putting itself on a proper footing in this connection. I would like to thank the Chancellor for having returned to his highly moral duties instead of exacting a tax which was so
immoral as this tax, and I can only hope he will allow the traders and others who are interested to come to him in connection with the valuation proposals.

Sir R. HORNE: My Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) referred, as if it were an unusual course, to the fact that I had not opened the Debate upon the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I was, however, acting, if not in accordance with every precedent, at least in accordance with a practice which has been observed on many occasions in this House before. I am sure that the course which I adopted was not inexpedient, and it was of the utmost advantage that I should have an opportunity of hearing what the Members of the House had to say with regard to the particular questions in which they were specially interested. It was all the more so, because the present Budget varies very little in principle from the Budget of the previous year, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) said. It accordingly left very little room for a discussion of questions of principle of a novel character. We have heard again this afternoon of the Excess Profits Duty, but I confess that it leaves me cold now to hear that tax criticised by the people who no doubt have suffered from it in the past and are still regretting the injuries which they assume to have been done to them. I do not think I need take up any time in discussing further the qualities or merits of that particular tax. No doubt in Committee we shall come to detailed questions as to the valuation of stocks and other matters to which the hon. Baronet who has just sat down (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) has referred. I am sorry if the White Paper, which has been issued, has not reached the hands of Members in time, but it was in the Vote Office yesterday. In point of fact, I have not acted without the advice and counsel of the business men to whom my hon. Friend has referred. The whole of the question dealt with in the White Paper was the subject of a very prolonged and valuable discussion with the representatives of the leading businesses of this country, and I hope I have been able to meet their views in at least a very large measure. I do not say I have met them upon every point, but I certainly have upon many of the questions in which they professed themselves vitally interested.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire drew attention to the fate that had attended the Revenue Bill recently introduced into this House, and still more recently withdrawn, and there have been certain speculations with regard to the reasons for the withdrawal of the Bill, I do not propose to deal with that question this afternoon. I should like, however, to say something upon the matters to which my attention was directed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire. He regrets that the administration Clauses of the Bill have not been proceeded with, and he proposes, he says, to move each of them in turn in connection with this Finance Bill. I understand the position which he takes up upon that matter. These Clauses are, undoubtedly, of great importance. They have been completely misapprehended, I think, by the outside public, and there has been a very great deal of uninformed criticism upon them. It was made perfectly apparent, however, that if we were to go forward with the Bill the provisions of those Clauses would undoubtedly have excited very considerable controversy—so much so, indeed, that in view of the congested character of this Session it would have been impossible to pass the Bill. Accordingly, it was regretfully withdrawn, but I should like to say to my hon. Friend that those Clauses will take up just as much time, if moved in connection with the present Finance Bill, and I hope he will not think it necessary to take the drastic course to which he has alluded.
I would like to refer also to the matter which he raised as to the effect of the proposal of the Revenue Bill to make the test period upon which an Income Tax assessment should be imposed that of the year immediately previous, instead of the average of the three preceding years. It is perfectly true that under present circumstances to have proceeded with a Measure in that sense would have resulted in a great loss of revenue, but when this matter comes to be considered I hope hon. Members will keep in mind the fact that during the years which have just gone, when we had a period of such hectic trade as, I suppose, none of us has ever previously known, people have made profits which have been assessed on the three years' average. They have had the benefit of the average during the period of high
profits, and it will not be inequitable if they should be asked to take the fat with the lean and, in the period through which we are going, suffer the results of the three years' average still being kept in application. I do not, however, say that my mind is made up upon that subject, nor the mind of the Government. I shall certainly take into consideration anything which is relevant which can be put before the Government between now and the period at which it will be necessary to pass a Measure dealing with this topic.
On the other points which my hon. Friend raised and which were referred to by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), namely, the questions of casual profits and evasion upon which certain findings were pronounced by the Royal Commission on Income Tax, these matters have not been left aside by the Government through any formed view that the findings should not be put into operation. I cannot say that upon the question of casual profits any scheme has been put before me which seems administratively practicable, and that is the reason why the question has not been dealt with; but if a practical scheme can be invented, then I think it is perfectly open to us to go forward with it. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends as to the necessity of making evasion less easy, and I am sure that they put it on the right ground when they say that it is not merely a question of getting money for the Exchequer, but also of being fair and just to the other taxpayers, and accordingly I would welcome any efficient scheme for carrying out the purpose which they have in view. The point which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) made with regard to double Income Tax is, I think, now the subject of fresh litigation on the terms of the new Act, and I think, if my information is correct, the view which he has expressed in the House this afternoon has been adopted by one of the Courts, but that decision is now the subject of appeal.
These were the matters my hon. Friend raised, and I should now like to turn for a moment to the point which was started by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). He complained that the Government under this Finance Bill were imposing retrospective taxation. He professed to find in Clause 18 of the Bill a
provision which would have the effect of imposing taxation upon people who otherwise would be free from it. The point he made was that, according to the previous law, people could put forward for assessment a certain figure of actual profits obtained, and have it taken as the basis of assessment, rather than the three years' average. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been under a misapprehension upon this matter. The fact is that there were certain exemptions granted under War legislation which required to be re-enacted from year to year. Last year, in the Finance Bill, there was a provision for repealing these exemptions. Upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman, abetted I think by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, proposed to have these exemptions taken out of the list of the provisions to be repealed. It was pointed out by the Lord Privy Seal, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the mere fact of taking these out of the repeal Section would not keep them in being unless they were re-enacted. Accordingly, at a later stage of the Bill it was proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire to enact a Clause which would have the effect of continuing the exemptions previously granted. The House, however, rejected that Clause, and accordingly made it plain that these exemptions were to disappear. One result, however, has been that, because of the fact that these exemptions were not nominatum repealed, certain views have been taken by local Commissioners as if these exemptions were still in existence, and the whole point of the present legislation is, not by retrospection to impose taxes on people who otherwise would not have been subject to them, but solely to make it plain what the law is under the legislation which the House of Commons really enacted. I am sorry the right hon. Baronet is not here to learn the explanation of the Clause to which he has taken exception.
Dealing still with matters of detail, the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has raised two questions, one with regard, as I understand, to the graduation of the Income Tax, upon which, however, he has put forward no specific proposals. These, no doubt, will be brought forward in Committee, and therefore I do not deal further with this matter. The other question is with regard to the Corporation Profits Tax, and I
should like to say a word with regard to the re-imposition of that tax. It was said by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Fildes) that the Corporation Profits Tax was unjust, because it put a special imposition upon a particular class of company or shareholder. But, in point of fact, there are two things to remember about the corporations which are liable to this tax. It is only limited liability corporations which come under this liability, and by the very fact of the privileges which were granted to them by the State in respect of limitation of liability, they have got privileges which the ordinary trading concern has not got. That is one reason why you are entitled at least to ask them to bear a particular obligation to the State. But there is another very important matter. It is that an ordinary trading firm which is not incorporated as a limited liability company is liable for Super-tax upon the fund which it puts to reserve. There is no such liability imposed upon the ordinary limited liability company, and, accordingly, it is not either unjust or unfair to ask limited liability corporations to bear this particular tax. So far as the revenue which is obtained from it is concerned, the House will keep in mind that only for a very short period have corporations been liable to this duty, and that during that period there has been no really efficient system of collection in vogue. In future, undoubtedly, the yield from this tax will be considerably greater.
The real point of all this Debate has been the question of expenditure and economy. I am very glad, from my own point of view, that this matter has been raised so sharply and so clearly in the House this afternoon. I do not think any of us can look upon the present expenditure of this country and upon the conditions with which we are faced with any kind of equanimity. I am sure we all share the anxiety which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Lime-house (Sir W. Pearce). The figures of our expenditure over recent years have been startling, and at the present time they are still of such size as to give rise to very great apprehension. I hope, however, that the House will, in fairness and justice, remember the actual reductions of expenditure which have been made. I will not go over the figures again, but I think that my right hon.
Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) spoke with less than his usual fairness and justice this afternoon when he referred to the amount of expenditure on the Army, Navy and Air Force. He took the figures for the Army in 1919–20, 1920–21, and 1921–22. He lumped them together in one sum, and said that it was a startling expenditure for the three years. That is one way of treating it, but I think it is only fair to point out that, while that sum over three years has been very considerable, the decrease from year to year has also been very great. For example, if you take 1919–20, the amount for the Army was £521,000,000. In 1920–21 it was brought down to £211,000,000, and in 1921–22 the Estimate is £126,000,000. Therefore, I think it is right when using figures of that kind, that it should be made plain that we are not keeping up the inflated figure to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but are doing everything in our power to get that figure down to the lowest possible limit. The same is true with regard to the Navy and the Air Force, and I should like to add that, whereas in 1919–20 the Civil Service cost £865,000,000, the Estimate for this year is considerably less than half that figure, amounting in all to £409,000,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What was the figure before the War?

Sir R. HORNE: I will deal with that in a moment. What I have been referring to in the argument up to now is the fact that we are doing something to reduce the expenditure upon these services. I am not saying we have done everything the human mind can accomplish, but we have done a very great deal, and I think the House is very willing to recognise that fact. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) expressed great disappointment at the figure at which expenditure still stood. He was good enough to refer in terms of some praise to a circular which has been issued by the Treasury to the various Departments with regard to the necessity of effecting economy in the current year. I am hopeful that that circular will produce the result which it is intended to achieve, but I recognise that it would be just as fallacious for me to make any claim on what we hope to achieve from the circular, as it is to make any criticism of
it on the ground that we are not likely to achieve anything. I think the House must take it that we intend to get all the results we can, and I mean to use all the powers which I have of securing as good results as possible.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This year?

Sir R. HORNE: Of course, I hope that the investigations we are going to make will not only affect next year but will also affect this year; at least, I shall try to achieve something even in this year. My hon. and gallant Friend, in referring to that circular, said he was disappointed that the figure of expenditure to which we look forward in 1922–23 was not to be less than £950,000,000. I agree that when you look at it it seems a very large figure, and I agree that if, without consideration or reflection, you put it against our expenditure before the War, about which the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy) is anxious, it still looks a very large figure. But consider it for a moment. Our expenditure before the War was £208,000,000. I am not exaggerating the facts of the case when I say that to accomplish the same result now that you did then you require at least double that sum, £416,000,000. Then all the increases that have taken place in the pay of soldiers and sailors have to be paid for.

Major C. LOWTHER: And the Civil Service.

Sir R. HORNE: Yes. There is the staff of the Civil Service as well. Human nature is human nature in whatever branch of employment it is engaged, and I am not aware that the human stomach requires any less sustenance in one Department than in another. If you start accordingly with a figure of £416,000,000 you have immediately to add to that figure £320,000,000, which is the excess amount we have now got to pay in interest on debt as a direct result of the War. That makes a very large hole in the remainder. It brings you up to between £700,000,000 and £800,000,000. Pensions is the next item. There is another £120,000,000 to add for that purpose. Then you have got to keep in mind that you have varying sums of maturing debt to meet and you have to provide for all sorts of obligations incurred under war loan redemption and payment of death duties in the shape of war stock.
You cannot put that sum at less than £100,000,000, and I am stating the minimum figure when I say that. Accordingly I agree with the disappointment of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) with regard to the size of the figure, but I cannot see how you are going to make it less.

Lord R. CECIL: My disappointment was at the statement in the Paper that there was no prospect of any reduction of taxation.

Sir R. HORNE: It only requires an inference to arrive at what the Noble Lord has said, because if you premise that your revenue is not likely to be more than £950,000,000, and your expenditure is likely to be in the region of £950,000,000, then obviously there is no room for remission of taxation. The Noble Lord said British citizens would not receive with very much enthusiasm the fact that there was to be no reduction of taxation. I am afraid there is no opportunity for enthusiasm at the present time in matters of finance. It is a question of grinning and bearing the condition in which you are, and facing and confronting facts, rather than of lamenting and bemoaning. The facts are there and we have got to meet them. I am obliged to my hon. Friend below the gangway (Mr. Bottomley) for the variety of suggestions which he has made with regard to possible ways of raising further revenue. Personally I do not exclude from my mind any of the suggestions, and I am willing to consider them all upon their merits. There are various considerations which apply to each of them, and these must be weighed before anybody can give an opinion as to what he would do in regard to them.
We are, as the hon. Member for Lime-house (Sir W. Pearce) pointed out, passing through a very trying time. Nobody realises more than I do the difficulties of trade in this country at the present time, because I have just left a Department where these matters were brought before me every day as simple matters of routine. There is nothing which impresses me more in connection with the country than the necessity of giving every possible encouragement and facility to industry. I agree with everything the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) said as to the hampering effect upon industry of very high taxation, because you are
taking away from the industry the money which should be fructifying in the factories. Therefore nobody could be more anxious than I to see the burden upon industry reduced. But it is necessary to keep going the country in which industry is carried on and you must deal with your conditions as you find them. The present year is going to have a very testing effect upon the courage and stability and steadiness of our people. We are going through a very great industrial crisis which has been tremendously emphasised by the coal stoppage, but there is one good effect which is coming out of the coal stoppage. I think people are really beginning to understand the economic position in which we find ourselves to-day. A great deal of optimism, entirely unjustified, existed throughout the country. People thought, when the load and burden of the War was off their shoulders, they must emerge into some sort of quiet space of happy good fortune. It only required a moment's reflection to show that nobody could rightly entertain such expectations.

Dr. MURRAY: Except the Prime Minister.

Sir R. HORNE: It is impossible that you could blow away £50,000,000,000 of the world's wealth without suffering for it. People expected to be in a better position than before the War. How is it possible for us to-day to be better off than before the War? The flower of the manhood of all the nations engaged in the War has been struck down and crippled, and the power of the world to produce wealth to-day is immeasurably less than it was. But I feel no pessimism whatsoever about the situation. I am sure that once we emerge from our immediate troubles the nation will settle down to work with a will which we have not known since the Armistice, and I am equally certain that if we confront the situation with courage we shall conquer it by our perseverance and our industry.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to the effect of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Hackney? What would be the effect of our carrying that Amendment, feeling regret at being obliged to do so,
and also feeling it imperative to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member was not in the House at the moment when I put the Question. This Amendment of the hon. Member for South Hackney was proposed as an Amendment to the Question that the Bill be now read a Second time. If that Amendment were carried, the result might be that there would be no taxes for any of us to pay, and that the taxes which have been already paid on champagne and cigars might have to be refunded, but where the money for pensions and other payments is to come from I do not know.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, that if this Amendment be disposed of the Bill is then read a Second time, and any further comment is impossible. In view or the very remarkable and interesting speech we have just had from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think one or two brief words of comment are required. The concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were the only part with which I agree. I must make some protest about one more example from that Treasury Bench of fatuous optimism. It has been proved fatuous. We have had it now for the third year in succession. We have been told we must grin and bear this burden of taxation which hon. Members, playing the part of Jeremiah throughout the whole afternoon, have testified in no uncertain terms is doing great injury to the country. The right hon. Gentleman excuses himself for not promising any reduction of taxation next year or this year by Saying we have a very heavy burden of debt to pay off, pensions and so forth, but he does not follow that up by saying that that was all the more reason for rigid economy now and all the more reason why an expenditure approximately equal to the pre-War expenditure for armaments, allowing for the increase of prices and soldiers pay, etc., is altogether indefensible. It is because we are a poor country, it is because so much wealth has been blown away, it is because we have this burden of debt and pensions and so on, that the expenditure on the swollen Civil Service estimates and the expenditure on
armaments is altogether indefensible, and I am in hopes that the Government, as I believe will be the case, by the very financial situation will be forced to go to the country this autumn. I believe they will have to do so because, I think, the situation is so serious, and it will reveal itself in all its wretchedness when the coal stoppage is settled. If hon. Members are still complacent, might I draw their attention to the fact of the American exchange during the last week? Very optimistic speeches can be made from the Treasury Bench, but the exchanges tell their own tale. We are having to pay more than we had to pay a week ago on the American exchange. This is not the big buying season from the United States; there will be a further drop, in the autumn, probably, when we buy our corn from the States. Our financial situation is obvious to financiers abroad, if not to the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. Yet we are told to grin and bear it, and hon. Members tell me to "Divide!" Yesterday we had a very heavy Estimate for Naval expenditure, and nobody cried "Divide!" We could not even get a Division.
8.0 P.M.
I wish to refer hon. Members to this very remarkable document which found its way into the Vote Office to-day—No. F3256, signed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in which the Government hold out their new panacea. Last year it was the Prime Minister's letter to the Departments, advocating economy with an axe. It had no effect, and for obvious reasons. To-day we have this precious document advocating the same policy to the Departments. The remedy does not lie in the Departments, but in the policy of the Government. There is one sentence in the document which sums up the pious aspirations of this remarkable document. It says,
My Lords earnestly trust that all Departments will co-operate in effecting the maximum reductions possible in their own expenditure.
A little higher up on the same paper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—this matter is of vital importance because people are being ruined—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—I am not going to be shouted down, and I will make this protest if hon. Members
will bear with me. The Departments are enjoined to address themselves to economies, and they are invited to make changes which will effect reductions. Take, for example, the India Office and imagine them setting to work to advocate a policy in Mesopotamia to reduce expenditure. Can you imagine the Irish Office setting to work to advocate a new policy that will save money in Ireland? The thing is too ludicrous. The policy must come from the Government, and until we have a totally different policy we cannot economise.
I am going to make one or two suggestions. The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) has suggested additional taxation, but I advocate another alternative. At Question Time, the Leader of the House, replying to a question about Asia Minor, said the Government only knew what had appeared in the papers on this point. We have a large British garrison at Constantinople maintained at a very heavy cost, and until the Near East situation is settled in Asia Minor we have to keep that garrison there, and the Government are taking no steps to bring an end to that state of unrest. The consequence is that British trade is suffering and the revenue is reduced, and we are being put to an enormous expenditure in keeping this garrison at Constantinople. That is one of the directions in which we can economise.
My second suggestion is in regard to the policy of keeping a garrison of 15,000 troops on the Rhine, and if that policy were altered we should save the cost of those troops. My third suggestion is in regard to Mesopotamia, because the country cannot afford to repeat the expenditure which we have incurred in that country in recent years. The Government have been asked what they are ex-

pending upon roads in Mesopotamia, and the reply was that they had telegraphed to find out. I think anyone who motors in this country will agree with me when I say that if any money is to be spent on roads, it will be much better spent upon roads in Great Britain than in Mesopotamia. Whatever we could afford last year in view of the industrial depression and the coal stoppage, we cannot afford to pour out those millions again in the desert. Those are examples where the Government could cut down expenditure.

My fourth suggestion is in regard to Ireland. The expenditure there is increasing week by week, and the regrettable loss of life increases. In Ireland the Government policy is absolutely futile. Those are the four main items where economy can be effected, that is Constantinople and Turkey generally, Mesopotamia, the Rhine, and Ireland. Until our policy in those four theatres of expenditure is altered, the expenditure will go on and there can only be one end to it, and that is that the Budget will not balance. I was informed recently by a well-known banker, that during the last four or five weeks we have had a revenue of £55,000,000 short of the Estimate. If that is a sample of the revenue you are going to get this year, then Heaven help us all. It means our credit will suffer abroad, and that the exchange will go still further against us, and the whole prosperity of the country will be effected. For these reasons I make no excuse for taking up the time of the House protesting against the fatuous optimism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 46.

Division No. 118.]
AYES.
[8.10 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Campbell, J. D. G.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cautley, Henry Strother


Armitage, Robert
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)


Astor, Viscountess
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill


Atkey, A. R.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Clough, Robert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Breese, Major Charles E.
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Coats, Sir Stuart


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Bromfield, William
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Barnston, Major Harry
Brown, Major D. C.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bruton, Sir James
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Betterton, Henry B.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Jephcott, A. R.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Rodger, A. K.


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Evans, Ernest
Kenyon, Barnet
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Kidd, James
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Seager, Sir William


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sexton, James


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Simm, M. T.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lloyd, George Butler
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Gee, Captain Robert
Lorden, John William
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Gilbert, James Daniel
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Stevens, Marshall


Gillis, William
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Sturrock, J. Leng


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sugden, W. H.


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Mason, Robert
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Green, Albert (Derby)
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Sutherland, Sir William


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Mitchell, William Lane
Taylor, J.


Gregory, Holman
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Greig, Colonel James William
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Morris, Richard
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murchison, C. K.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Waddington, R.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wallace, J.


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Neal, Arthur
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Hallas, Eldred
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wignall, James


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Parker, James
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Hinds, John
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perkins, Walter Frank
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Perring, William George
Wise, Frederick


Hopkins, John W. W.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Worsfold, T. Cato


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Prescott, Major W. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Purchase, H. G.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Ramsden, G. T.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hurd, Percy A.
Raper, A. Baldwin
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler



Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Irving, Dan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Mr. Dudley Ward and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir J. Gilmour.


NOES.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayward, Evan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barnes Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Hirst, G. H.
Swan, J. E.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hogge, James Myles
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cairns, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lunn, William
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Glanville, Harold James
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Robertson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. Bottomley and Major C.




Lowther.


First Resolution read a Second time.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [19TH APRIL].

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1921–22.

CLASS II.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,711,605, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, a Grant in Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants in Aid; of the Agricultural Wages Board, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

CLASS I.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £178,346, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Dr. MURRAY: I wish to ask the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what is to be the policy of the Government with regard to the herring-curing industry. Members of the House interested in the matter are aware that the pickled herring industry is in a very precarious condition, and has been ever since the Armistice. The most important markets for pickled herrings are Russia and Germany, and those markets have been closed up. A great number of fishermen along the East Coast of England and Scotland and on the West Coast of Scotland, who have been engaged in this industry in the past, are unemployed. The great bulk of them during the War were either in the Army or were working on the trawler section of the Royal Naval Reserve. When they got back to their homes they found that their industry was practically gone. There was no market for cured herrings, and there was no other occupation for them in those parts of the country. The consequence is there has been a great deal of unemployment on the East and West Coasts of Scotland. That unemployment began long before other industries in the country were affected. When those other industries were booming, the pickled
herring industry, on which a thousand or two families depend for a livelihood, was becoming a failure. We are quite willing to acknowledge that the Government during the first year or two gave very considerable assistance to this industry, but I understand that this year it has actually refused to give any sort of financial help.
That, of course, is part of the policy of cutting down subsidies and expenditure in every direction. If the policy had been universally applied we would have had no reason to complain so far as this particular industry is concerned, but we notice that agriculture has been and is being helped in various ways. The millers get a subsidy for using home-grown wheat. Public money is thus used to help the farmers. I see placards posted all over the place intimating that the Government are offering £10,000,000 to the mining industry to help it, and in addition to that the country is paying a good deal in aid of the railway industry. There is a great deal of talk about key industries. If there is one key industry in this country it is the fishing industry. I am speaking of key industries in the technical sense in which they were spoken of during the War. If we are going to have another war—I hope we shall not—certainly these fishermen who were employed in the last war will be again required to man our ships and to work the trawlers and cruisers. If this country is to experience the calamity of war in the future I regard the fishing industry as a key industry, because the men engaged in it will be expected to serve the country again. The danger at present is that the great bulk of the men hitherto engaged in the herring industry may leave it and fend for themselves in other directions, mostly by emigration. I heard only yesterday that from only one small part of my own constituency 200 of these fishermen who have served us in time of need will be compelled, on account of the absolute failure of the herring industry, to emigrate when they get the chance.
The result of this failure of the industry is to cause wholesale emigration of these men to other parts of the Empire, and sometimes to America. That may be a good thing for Canada or Australia or wherever they may go, but it is a bad thing for the country, because it is really the best and most energetic men who will go away. The least active men are apt to
remain at home and try and pick up a crumb here and there, but the result of the Government's policy, present or contemplated, with regard to this very essential key industry, will be that in a few years no men will be left to carry on the industry, and most of them will have emigrated to other countries. I am not talking merely to make the flesh creep, but am stating actual facts which I know. I know that a great number of these men are wondering to what part of the Empire they will emigrate, because practically the industry is dead. One is glad to see that in connection with Russia the Government have adopted a new policy and have made a trade agreement with that country. One of the first effects of that has been that some of last year's pickled herrings have been shipped to Russia—£200,000 worth, I understand. I admit that that is a good beginning, but the conditions are still such that some Government assistance for the industry—and I fear it must be financial assistance—is absolutely necessary. I believe, however, that if the Government gave the industry a financial guarantee it would not lose money by it in the future. At present it is impossible for private enterprise to continue the trade as in past years. The Government have certainly now done well, but they have done it too late. They have been so long in coming to an agreement with Russia with regard to trade relations, that during the time they have been dawdling with this question the herring industry has been almost broken up.
Not only is the industry in itself an industry essential to the welfare of the country, but these men have very special claims on the Government, and, although it would cost a little money, I think that if any industry deserves to be kept from destruction it is this industry, in which these brave men who helped us so much in the War are engaged. It makes my blood boil when I think of the light-hearted—and I may almost say lightheaded—way in which the Government spend over £30,000,000 upon people in Mesopotamia, who gave us no aid in the War, and, since the War, have been murdering our men and refuse to accept the civilisation we offer them. While the Government are willing to spend money in every country except their own, they are content to leave trade undeveloped
here, and to allow an important industry of this kind to languish and die. It is a peculiar form of patriotism, and certainly one that I do not understand. If the Government say that they cannot give financial assistance in this case, I ask, why do they give it to those in other parts of the world who have no claim to it? I know that if the Minister had his own way he would be sympathetic to the cause which I am now advocating, and I do press him, in the interests not only of the Scottish, but of the English fishing industry—an honourable industry that has produced a class of men who are an asset to the country—to do what he possibly can to restore it to the position which it occupied in days gone by. As a by-product of the present conditions, while some of these men, and women also, have to pay in connection with unemployment insurance, they do not, because the trade is of a seasonal character, get the unemployment benefit. I get scores of letters every week complaining that these men, who cannot get employment anywhere, cannot get their insurance pay, nor can those who have been soldiers or sailors get the out-of-work donation. They are hit both ways; they can neither get work in their own industry nor the assistance which the Government intended that people honestly out of employment should be able to get. I hope that this question will receive, as it deserves, the sympathetic attention of the Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have much sympathy with the point of view of my hon. Friend (Dr. Murray), but I really think he is not quite justified in asking for a further subsidy. What he should be doing is attacking the policy of the Government, which has so hampered the trade of this country with Germany and Russia that the herrings cannot find their natural outlet. I agree with my hon. Friend that, if a subsidy is to be found for any industry in the country, the fishermen are deserving of assistance, especially in view of their war record and of their great potential value for the Navy. The real solution of the herring problem, however, lies in a policy that will foster trade. If we prevent imports coming to this country from the Continent, they will not be able to buy our herrings from us. After the discussion we have had this afternoon, and in spite of the optimism—as I think, misplaced—of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, I must make a protest against some of the items on this Vote which show an increase. At a time when workmen throughout the country are being invited to accept reductions in wages—miners, seamen, firemen, stewards, engineers, railwaymen—in the case of the last-named it is still to come, but in other cases the reductions have already been heavy—can we justify the very first item in this Vote, namely, Item A? There we find salaries, wages, and allowances increased by £82,000. Going a little further, we find that Item J1, for salaries, wages, and allowances of the Agricultural Wages Board, shows an increase in salaries of £9,713, the first item, of course, being the headquarters staff. In the case of the officials of the Department there is an increase of £20,215; and so I could go on. In all these subsidiary Departments of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries the salaries are being increased this year, when practically all other classes in the country—the people who support these officials—are being compelled by economic causes, and after many industrial disputes with their employers, to accept heavy reductions in wages. I do not think that can be justified, and I hope hon. Members will support me in reducing the Vote. I believe the number of officials has been decreased in this Department, and yet in addition to the salaries being raised there is not a penny of saving in the trawling and removal expenses. So much for their vaunted economies this year over last year.
We come to an item lower down which I wish seriously to question, and that is the voting of £135,000 to foster the cultivation of sugar beet. Last year we subscribed to a company for the production of home-grown beet sugar 250,000 shares of £1 each, and that amount was actually paid to the company. This year we are asked to vote £125,000 as a loan to this home-grown sugar company secured by second mortgage on the assets of the company. So having provided the company with capital we are now making a further loan of £125,000, and we take as security the assets we bought last year with the taxpayers' money, and we guarantee interest of 5 per cent. on the capital subscribed by the public to Home-grown Sugar Limited in respect of the year ending 31st March, 1921. So we are not only setting them up in business to the
tune of a quarter of a million, but we are paying the interest out of public money this year. In view of the condition of the finances of the country, I think that expenditure is not justified. If there are commercial possibilities in growing beet sugar let it be done on commercial lines and do not come to the Government for assistance. There is plenty of cheap sugar in Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, and Germany, and there is good cheap cane sugar in our own Colonies in the West Indies, and that is where we should look for our sugar supplies. It is part of the Protectionist policy of the Government of trying to make us a country living by taking in each other's washing. They do not realise that sugar can be grown cheaper abroad than probably it ever can be in this country. So they are going artificially to foster and help on this industry. The next thing will be a demand for a tariff on sugar on behalf of the company, and the excuse that will be made from that Bench if the Government, is still in power, which I sincerely trust will not be the case, is that we have public money invested and we must protect the industry, and the next thing will be that we shall have the price of sugar put up in every household in the country.
I wish to make a couple of constructive suggestions and one is in connection with the reclamation of land. I see this year there is a saving in the expenditure on land reclamation. There are certain parts in the country where I believe expenditure on this purpose would be exceedingly remunerative. There is a part of the country near my constituency, which interests me, where I am informed that very valuable reclamations could be made—I refer to the Wash. Have any schemes for reclaiming the Wash been examined?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Yes, and carried out.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: To a very small extent. I am informed that if that part of England were in Holland the whole of the Wash would have been reclaimed years ago. I believe small reclamation schemes have been undertaken, but I am thinking of a very great reclamation scheme. I have no means of testing the accuracy of my statement. I am only asking for an explanation. If in the
Wash, or in Morecambe Bay or the Humber, or anywhere else, there are possibilities of land reclamation in these times of unemployment, I believe the employment of men on land reclamation schemes would be well worth doing and would repay the expenditure. That is a different matter from expenditure on useless things such as we have been discussing this afternoon.
My second suggestion, which I made last year and to which the right hon. Gentleman did not reply at the time, is, what is being done to consult foreign countries, bordering especially on the North Sea, with regard to co-operative action for the preservation of the North Sea fisheries? Before the War the position of the North Sea fisheries was not very bright, and the trawlers were being driven further and further a field, to Iceland and the Morocco coast, for their catches. But during the War, owing to the presence of minefields and the restrictions on fishing, large areas of the North Sea were untouched, and the fish were allowed to breed. Now, of course, fish are extremely plentiful. What is undoubtedly needed to-day is combined action of all the countries concerned—Scandinavia, Denmark, Holland, Germany, England, and France—in the way of research and the preserving of certain banks and the breeding of fish, and so on. It is a big subject, and extremely interesting. Alone this country could do little compared with what could be done by combining with the other countries concerned. I should be very happy if the right hon. Gentleman could inform us what steps have been taken to reopen negotiations with other countries with a view to combined action being taken. I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £200,000, which is the amount of the extra dole for the artificial beet sugar industry and the increase of wages for civil servants.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): It is too late to move an Amendment of the nature suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: This is a Vote for the Board of Agriculture for England, and I suppose it would not entitle us to go into detail into the question of the Scottish herring fishing.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That comes under the Scottish Vote.

Major WOOD: But there are many questions which involve both countries, and I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions on this subject, because the situation which has produced itself in Scotland is almost certain, as far as we can see, to reproduce itself later on in England; and if Scotland has been too late in making preparations for dealing with it, England ought to take a lesson and get ready to deal with the same question when it faces it. My hon. Friend (Dr. Murray) has dealt with the question of the herring industry as a key industry. That idea is bound to come before the public, and in fact has come before the public in view of the fact that the Government has gone out of its way to protect certain industries, which it has thought fit to call key industries, although many people think that they are much less key industries than an industry like the herring fishing industry. No doubt it seems strange to suggest that an industry like the herring fishing industry is a key industry, but I am certain that it comes within the very narrowest definition of a key industry that has been made. Not only do you require the personnel of the men who man the fishing fleets in time of war, but the recent War has shown that we also want the boats. When the War broke out, hundreds of herring drifters and trawlers were taken by the Admiralty, and the War showed us that the Navy would have been a very much easier object of attack if it had not been able to draw upon these drifters and trawlers for mine sweeping and for acting as a screen when a battle was imminent. If you do not support the herring fishing industry you will not be able to call upon hundreds of these craft in war as you did on the last occasion. This industry is vital to the safety of our country in time of war, and it will be able to make out as good a case, indeed, I think a far better case than many of the industries which have been scheduled, or are going to be scheduled, as key industries in the Bill which the Government is going to introduce shortly. That is the case as regards the key-industry argument.
Apart from that, there is a very serious question facing Scotland at the present time, which is going to face England presently, and that is why it concerns the Minister of Agriculture. The whole of the Scottish herring fishing industry is prac-
tically at a standstill at the present time. Two years ago the herring fishing industry, both in Scotland and in England, was faced with a most difficult situation, which the Government recognised by giving them a guarantee and practically subsidising them. They subsidised them because the War had deprived the industry of its only market for its produce. I believe I am right in saying that something like 80 per cent. of the herrings which are caught in these islands were sent in the form of pickled herring to Germany and Russia. The War deprived the industry of its market, and it was right at the time that the Government should come forward and subsidise the industry in the way it did. The first year it paid the Government to do so, because they made no loss on the guarantee they gave. The Government, however, were wrong in giving a guarantee of that kind, if they did not at the same time start to assist the industry in other ways, so that when the guarantee was over the industry would be able to fight for itself. What happened? Instead of using the respite that was given by the guarantee to provide markets for the herring industry, the Government did practically nothing, so far as we have seen. Russia and Germany, the great markets for the herring industry, were left in exactly the same position. No successful effort was made to open up Russia as a market for our herrings, and nothing was done to help the fishing industry to get Germany as a market.
After a year had elapsed the industry found itself in exactly the same position as it was a year before, and assistance was again asked from the Government, and again assistance had to be given, because the herring industry had a complete case. They had suffered from the War, and they alleged, quite rightly, that the cost of assisting them ought to be put down as a War charge. The Government had had a lesson. They had had a whole year in which to provide for the situation, and they had done nothing. Then they had another year. What has happened? Exactly the same thing has happened this year as last year, and two years after the Armistice the industry finds itself in exactly the same position as it did immediately the Armistice was concluded. There is another aspect of the situation which makes the position worse than it was two years ago. Then
the industry had a good deal of money, but now it has none, and ruin is staring it in the face unless something is done. Not only has nothing been done, but the Government has gone out of its way to deal the industry another blow. Although Germany is the great market for our herrings, the Government has passed the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, which has had the effect, as it was bound to have, and as the Government was warned would be the case, of stopping all trade with Germany. Instead of giving the industry a guarantee for the third year the Government has gone out of its way to prevent it fending for itself.
What does the Minister of Agriculture suggest can be done by the herring industry this year? Where is it going to find a market for its herrings this year? If it cannot find a market for its herrings what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do? Is he going to do anything? Is he going to allow the fishing industry to go into bankruptcy or to stop altogether? It is obvious that if they cannot find markets for their pickled herring the industry cannot go on. The problem is not a problem with which the right hon. Gentleman is face to face at once, but it will be too late if he waits until there is unemployment along the coasts of England and then attempts to deal with it. I know he will not be able to deal with it adequately now. He should have started two years ago. If his predecessor or the Government had started two years ago to deal with the question, probably it would not have been a question at all to-day; it would have disappeared. You cannot deal with it at once, but the Government should take warning from the position of Scotland at the present time to start to deal with this question and before it becomes acute, as it is almost certain to become acute, a few months hence when the herring boats come down to ply their craft at Lowestoft and Yarmouth. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some satisfaction on this point.
There is another point which I should like to mention, and that is the loss of gear which is continually felt by fishermen on the Lowestoft and Yarmouth coast during the late autumn herring fishing. Again and again I have had complaints from Scottish fishermen who have come down to Lowestoft and Yar-
mouth and who have lost enormous quantities of gear. The nets before the War were dear enough in all conscience, but they are three or four times dearer now. For a herring boat the loss of a number of nets is a very serious thing. Experience has shown that the loss of fishing gear is far greater around Lowestoft and Yarmouth than anywhere else. That is due, I believe, not only to the fact that the herring boats there are concentrated in a narrower area than in other places where the herring fishery is prosecuted, but also, I am assured by these fishermen, to foreigners in many cases, Dutchmen and people of that kind, who come along and have no interest in respecting the property of Scottish and British fishermen. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can do anything to increase and make more efficient the policing of that area, so as to prevent the destruction of gear in future. It is a very serious question in which Scottish fishermen at any rate, and I fancy also English fishermen, are deeply interested, and any hope that the right hon. Gentleman will hold out as to the amelioration of this particular condition of things would be welcomed very much by the whole fishing community.

9.0 P.M.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In reference to the question of herring fisheries, we all admit the excellent work which was done by the fishermen, both herring fishers and trawlers during the War. Nothing could have been better. They showed the greatest courage and zeal, and most of them joined up. But the question of continuing a guarantee to the herring fishery is a very serious matter which is not to be undertaken lightly in present circumstances. At the end of the War—in 1919—it was realised that the herring fishery had been completely upset by the destruction of the ordinary markets. As one of the hon. Members said, this is a very remarkable trade in the fact that at least 80 per cent. of the catch is exported. The export, chiefly pickled herrings, used to go principally to Germany and Russia. The German market was not available, and the Russian market was not available. The Government, therefore, realising the difficulty, said to the fishermen and the others engaged in the trade, the curers, coopers and others, "We will for one year carry you through your difficulties and
give you grants." The grant came to this, that we bought practically the whole catch of the year 1919, both of the Scottish season and the English season, and we sold what we bought principally to Germany and other foreign countries not for cash but on long credits. It is true that as regards that particular year no loss was made, at any rate on paper, bat I am not at all certain that we shall ever realise the whole of the purchase price, and I fancy that in the long run there will be a loss even on the year 1919. In any case the nation had to find the cash and stand out of its money for a long time. This grant was given specifically for one year only. Then a year ago, just before the Scottish season was starting, the Scottish fishermen and others interested in the trade came to the Government and said, "We must have this grant for another year." That was contradictory to the undertaking that had been given that it was to be for one year only, but, I think perhaps weakly, the Government agreed to give way and they did again buy a large part of the catch. We spent last year £1,253,000, as well as I remember, on this transaction. This is going to be a very heavy loss. We have been unable to sell more than about one-third, if I remember aright. I was not given any notice that this particular question was going to be raised, so I may be excused if I mention the figures generally.

Dr. MURRAY: We did not know it was coming on.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The one-third we have sold, we have sold at a loss. The fact is, and I am afraid that this largely is the result of the Government grant, we produce these pickled herrings at a much higher price than our competitors have been doing. The Norwegians have been underselling us in our distant markets. It is not true to say that these markets are not open now. Both Russia and Poland and many of those countries on the Baltic and Germany have purchased large quantities. Unfortunately they have purchased largely from Norway, because, I am afraid, largely in consequence of the Government guarantee, the cost price here has been a great deal more than the cost price in Norway. In other words, we have lost our markets to our competitors. The Government were more or less driven at the last moment
to renew the guarantee for last year, and between 1919 and 1920 no steps have been taken by the trade to finance themselves, and it was decided that we must make it clear to the trade that we could not extend the grant for another year. Therefore we summoned a meeting, after the English autumn fishing was over, and we then pointed out to the representatives of the trade, fishermen, coopers, curers and everybody interested, that they must take steps to finance themselves in the future, that, though we did not regret the fact that for two years we had practically carried this trade on the back of the nation, that must come to an end, and we gave early warning that they must take steps to look after themselves in the future. I do not see what other steps we could take. I regret very much any unemployment, trouble, misery or impoverishment that may be caused to a very deserving class of people, but they cannot expect to be carried on the back of the nation for ever.

Major WOOD: They do not.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: What proposals have they made to finance the trade? I am not aware of one.

Major WOOD: Why, here you are closing up the German market.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We have not. The German market is open. We have sold a number of herrings in the German market, but we have sold at a loss. My hon. Friend is completely in error. I think that he is thinking of some political question which has nothing whatever to do with this.

Major WOOD: It has had the effect of closing the German market.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, because long before the Reparation Act was even thought of we could not dispose of the herrings in Germany, because we were being undersold by the Norwegians. The fact is that owing to the Government guarantee we have been producing them here at a higher price than our competitors. Hon. Members ask me again to continue the guarantee. They ask that once more State credit should be brought into play.

Major WOOD: I never asked that the guarantee should be continued.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Then what does my hon. Friend propose?

Major WOOD: I asked how the right hon. Gentleman was going to deal with the question of unemployment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As to that the hon. Member will have to approach the Ministry of Labour. I understand that as this is a seasonal trade those who follow it are not qualified for unemployment insurance. It is really a matter for the Minister of Labour. What on earth can we do? We cannot find markets. It is no part of the business of my Department to find markets for trade. How could we do it? We have given these fishermen every chance for two years by assisting them, and we made a very heavy loss on last year's transaction. We gave them ample warning that they would have to take steps in the trade to finance themselves in future. Beyond that we cannot possibly go. It is remarkable that hon. Members are now suggesting that we should again give this guarantee.

Major WOOD: I did not suggest it.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The hon. Member who spoke first (Dr. Murray) did so. On the other hand, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) desired to move a reduction of the Vote on the ground that we had been too extravagant. That is an exact example of what is frequently happening in this House. Every one of us is an economist in general and a spendthrift in particular. We all talk about the value of economy, but we have all in mind some particular thing on which we think more expenditure should be made. That is the greatest difficulty the Government always have in dealing with questions of economy. The hon. Member for Central Hull said there had been an increase of salaries. That was debated at considerable length in Committee. I then pointed out that there had been no increase in personnel, that there had been on the agricultural side of the Ministry a decrease, and a slight increase on the fisheries side. That increase is in the scientific branch where officials are engaged in research work of great importance. The increased expenditure is entirely due to automatic increases of salary and to the war bonus. The war bonus in my Department in no
way differs from that in any other Department. It is governed by the rules of the Civil Service. I have always been given to understand that its increase or decrease lagged a little behind the increase or decrease in the cost of living because those concerned got their increase about six months later than other people. Consequently they will retain it for a longer period; but I have no doubt that with the fall in the cost of living the bonus will be largely reduced during the present year.
I can assure the hon. Member for Central Hull that I am taking the most vigorous steps possible to curtail expenditure in every Department and to reduce the staff. The hon. Member spoke about sugar beet. In Committee I explained that fully. It is true that last year the nation voted £250,000 in order to take up shares in this home-grown sugar company. It is for the purpose of erecting a sugar mill on an estate bought for the purpose, and the only reason why we ask for more money this year is that owing to the greatly increased cost of building and material and everything else, it has been found impossible to erect the mill at the price originally-anticipated. We are asking for a second mortgage of £125,000 on the assets of the property. The security is very ample. There is a very large freehold estate, there is the sugar mill, and there is very valuable stock on the farm. The policy has been approved by this House on more than one occasion. It is in no sense protective; it is not in the least designed to interfere with the canons of Free Trade or anything of that kind. It is believed by those who have studied this question for years that we can grow sugar beet in this country as cheaply and as well as certain foreign countries.

Dr. MURRAY: Are you losing money on it?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are not.

Mr. WISE: What is the value of the security?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I gave all the figures in Committee. I did not know the question would be asked to-night, or I would have had them available. There are a freehold estate of 4,000 acres, the whole of the stock on the farm, and the value of the mill when erected.

Mr. WISE: But there is a first charge?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: This is a second charge.

Mr. WISE: There is a charge before that.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There is a charge of £75,000 in front of this. This is a charge of £125,000, but there is an ample margin over and over again. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question on the subject I will give him the figures. The House has agreed that this is a policy which could be tried; it has been agreed that the experiment should be made with Government help. We have every reason to believe it will be successful. If successful, the Government help will proceed no further. I hope it will prove that sugar beet can be grown in this country and sugar made from it successfully on commercial lines. If that is so, the experiment made by the Government will no doubt be copied by other people, and we shall then be able to produce a valuable article of food at home, whereas hitherto we have had to import all of it. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull also spoke about reclamation. Nobody could be more anxious than I to see land reclaimed if it could be done on any kind of economic basis. I have had examined schemes for the reclamation of parts of the sea like The Wash. I have also examined questions of the drainage of bogs in various places. I have also gone fully into the question of the reclamation of sandy wastes. The difficulty is that at the very lowest estimate the value of the land when reclaimed is generally not half, and very often a great deal less than half, of the cost of reclamation. The hon. Member spoke especially about The Wash. We were asked by the Ministry of Labour to undertake a reclamation scheme there. It was not a small scheme. It involved the reclaiming of nearly 400 acres, the building of a sea wall, and the enclosing of land.
It was done for the purpose of employing unemployed labour. I cannot carry the exact figures in my head, but I believe the cost was rather less than £200 per acre, and the present value of the land is less than £20 an acre. You may do this if you like for the purpose of employing unemployed labour, and, of course, you will get an asset in the
end, because that land will greatly improve in value, but except for the purpose of employing unemployed labour, we cannot embark at this moment in schemes of this sort, excellent though they may be in their ultimate result. The cost of them is absolutely prohibitive, and it would be a most spendthrift policy to adopt generally all through the country. I have been going into the matter very carefully, with the special object of seeing whether we could not utilise some of these schemes to deal with unemployment.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was the Humber scheme examined?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot say whether the Humber case was gone into or not, but there are some cases that I have gone into. I should like to do it because if unemployed are to be employed and if we can obtain an asset in the end by doing so, so much the better, but the cost is enormous. I will just put one point on that matter. Unemployed are generally to be found in the great towns. When you take men and set them to reclaim lands like those along The Wash, or put them on to drainage schemes on rivers such as the Ouse and other Fen rivers it means taking them out of the towns, away from where they live, placing them in huts and rendering the cost infinitely greater. That is a consideration which has always to be borne in mind. These schemes will not absorb many unemployed men in the particular localities because there are not sufficient of such men there, and therefore you have to move men into these districts with the result that the cost becomes prohibitive. If the hon. Member has any particular scheme which he would like to have examined by our experts, I shall be only too pleased to see that this is done. In regard to the question of the exploration of the North Sea by some future National Council for the purpose of discovering where the best fisheries are, I may state there is an international body in existence for the exploration of the North Sea, of which Mr. Maurice, of the Fisheries Department, is chairman and various experts in fisheries are engaged in different kinds of research. We have a research vessel which is specially investigating the question of the plaice fishery. There is a rather remarkable feature in connection with the North Sea
Fisheries. Parts of the North Sea were greatly over-fished before the War. The War caused a sort of "close season" during which great parts of it could not be fished. Before the War plaice had been growing smaller and smaller in numbers and size and they are now greatly improved owing to the "holiday" which has been given to the plaice fishing and the size of the fish has also increased. These investigations are being carried out constantly by international agreement, and I can assure my hon. Friend the matter is not being neglected. I think I have now replied to all the points which have been raised, and inasmuch as we have had a very long discussion in Committee I hope the House will be willing without much more conversation to agree with the Committee and to grant this Vote.

Mr. ROYCE: I am sorry to delay the right hon. Gentleman in receiving his Vote, but the subject of land reclamation has been introduced and it is one in which I am particularly interested. I am quite prepared to accept this statement as to the cost of the scheme which his Department undertook at the request of the Ministry of Labour, but as he will be the first to admit, he had no adequate staff, he had no experience of land reclamation and the method in which his Department went to work was probably one of the most costly that could be employed. To those who had any knowledge of reclamation work their efforts were simply ridiculous. The experience he has received so far should not be quoted under the circumstances when a real scheme of reclamation is brought to the notice of his Department. It is quite true that some provision would be necessary for a large number of men in the shape of huts, but I have here estimates from a highly competent man, which satisfy me that for less than £40 an acre land along the shore of the Wash could be reclaimed. There may be some little Parliamentary expense in addition to that, but there is no necessity for increasing the cost to double the amount, or for extraordinary expenses in connection therewith. I do not wish to delay the House with figures, but I am quite satisfied there are several schemes of land reclamation on the Wash that will not only employ a good deal of labour which is now unemployed but will enable that labour to be economically employed, if
they are properly directed. I hope this is not the last word we shall hear in regard to the resolution of the Ministry on land reclamation experiments. We had it from the Prime Minister at the last General Election that one of the principal works the Government proposed to undertake, in view of anticipated unemployment at the conclusion of the War would be land reclamation, and we have several very favourable areas, such as Lynn flats and Boston flats all along the Wash, and in some instances there are places where at least 2,000 acres can be taken in, at a cost not exceeding £40 an acre under proper direction. I have a highly skilled engineer's estimate, and when I hear the Government's reply that with the cost of hutting and other expenses it will cost just double the amount for the reclamation of the land, I can only say that is simply ridiculous. If the prime cost of the work is to be increased twice over, for overhead expenses then it must be an inefficient Government that would possibly contemplate the undertaking of such work. I am perfectly convinced we have an opportunity for economic reclamation of land along the Wash.
There is just another matter which I wish to mention. I have already had an opportunity of bringing it to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman and have received a good deal of sympathy from him, but I do not think his Department takes a sufficiently strong line in regard to it. There are fishing industries along our coasts in addition to the herring fisheries which have been destroyed by high railway rates. We have a market for their products; the market is here, and the high railway rates are killing this shell fishing industry. I have received a promise that the matter is being considered. A great Bill is coming before this House which will concern the interests of the minor industries. I hope that a good deal of consideration will be given to this subject during the passage of that Bill, so that it will not be left to a body of men to ignore these small industries and, by putting on high railway rates, to ruin an industry which not only supports a large number of deserving men but is of very great value to the country.
Just one word with regard to the Wash fisheries. I have brought this matter to
the right hon. Gentleman's notice before, but I feel it my duty to do so again. An important fishing area has been ruined by seals in the Wash. A very little effort on the part of his Ministry would destroy those pests. They get into the channels when the tides are coming up, and no fish can get past them; they destroy the whole lot. It has been reported by the right hon. Gentleman's inspectors, time after time, that this condition of affairs exists. They did, at one period, offer a bonus per head for the destruction of these pests, and it would involve a very small expenditure and would repay itself one hundredfold if the right hon. Gentleman would consider again the possibility of making some effort to destroy these seals. There are not a large number of men interested in this, but as the head of a great Ministry dealing with something which probably costs less to this country to produce and is of greater value as food than anything else, I hope it will be worth while for the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider it.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is at a very fortunate moment that I have come into the House, because when I was last here we were having an extremely interesting discussion on the extravagance of the Government and the necessity for reducing expenditure. Now I come in and find the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Royce) endeavouring to persuade the Government to spend more money. I do not know which way the hon. Gentleman voted or whether he voted at all in the Division at 8 o'clock, but if he voted with the minority I would point out that he is by no means consistent in asking now for an increase in expenditure probably to benefit some of his constituents.

Mr. ROYCE: On reproductive works.

Sir F. BANBURY: Everything is reproductive when an hon. Member desires it. It remains to be seen, after the money has been spent, whether or not it is reproductive. I have had considerable experience in land reclamation, which is one of the objects upon which the hon. Gentleman desires the Government to spend money. For a good many years I lived near Peterborough, and over £100,000 was spent in reclaiming land at Whittle sea Mere. The whole of the money was wasted. The land was very good land when it was reclaimed, and it
let in those days at something like 25s. an acre, but they had to keep two engines pumping. The result was that when the owner of the property died his successor was forced to sell, owing to the fact that all this money had been spent upon reclamation and it turned out to be practically a loss, because the land was only fetching 25s. an acre and in addition to that the landowner had to pay a heavy burden for pumping expenses. The hon. Gentleman says that this is only going to cost £40 an acre. How much land is there in this country worth at the present time £40 an acre? Very little. Good agricultural land at the present moment is not worth more than £30 an acre, and a good deal of it not more than £20.

Mr. ROYCE: You had better come down to South Holland, in Lincolnshire.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know where South Holland is, but there are no doubt exceptions, such as the Vale of Evesham and one or two other places. The vast majority of land, however, is not worth more than £30 an acre, even if it is worth as much as that. It is very doubtful if this land can be reclaimed for £40. I have never yet met an engineer who has given an estimate for such work who, when the work has been completed, has not had to admit that that estimate was much under the mark. In all probability, if the land is reclaimed, when we have spent the £40 an acre the cost will be considerably more. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether this is not an opportunity of doing, what practically the whole House earlier in the evening desired the Government to do, namely, to stop spending money?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I said so.

Sir F. BANBURY: Then I am only supporting my right hon. Friend, and I am very glad to do so, against the hon. Gentleman who was urging him to spend this money. I was rather afraid that the hon. Gentleman's eloquence, supported by the Labour party, who are always anxious to spend money, might have had its effect on my right hon. Friend. However, as this is the case, I will not pursue the subject any further.
I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one or two items in the Vote. There is the Agricultural Wages Board, with salaries, wages, and allowances.
Travelling expenses are £16,750—for ruining agriculture, because that is all the Agricultural Wages Board has done—and special services, legal and incidental expenses, come to £11,250. The total for the Agricultural Wages Board is £69,389, an increase of £10,963. The sooner the Agricultural Wages Board is done away with the better. It is doing no good to anybody and is costing the country very large sums of money. I do not know whether this has been brought up before, but if it has I am very glad, and I take the opportunity of emphasising the fact that here is a chance of doing away with an institution which is doing no good to anybody, and is costing very large sums of money. In the circular issued by the Treasury to-day it is pointed out that the Agriculture Act of 1920 will next year cost the country large sums of money. Here is an opportunity for economising. Repeal the Agriculture Act of 1920. It was an extremedy bad Act, and with it will go the Agricultural Wages Board, and a considerable sum of money will be saved.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: For subsidies.

Sir F. BANBURY: If the House really means to save money and to stop expenditure, it has got to take drastic steps. It is no use saying this is going to be remunerative, or will bring in some money, or will do something to enable certain people to get wages beyond what the economic situation will allow them to receive. That cannot go on. There is a large quantity of work which could be done in agriculture to-day, but which is not being done because people cannot afford to pay the wages. Men would be very glad to work for less wages, but are unable to do so on account of the Agricultural Wages Board. The Government must recognise that all these socialistic so called social reform measures, even if they are good, which I do not believe they have been proved to be, are extremely expensive, and at the present moment, when we have not got any money, they are too great a luxury to be continued. I was obliged to get up, because this is a lesson for the country and the House, that here, earlier in the evening, the vast majority of Members were in favour of retrenchment, even if they did not vote against the Government, and when in Supply we have an opportunity of showing how earnest we are in our desire for
retrenchment, so far as I have heard the only Member who has spoken has advocated more expenditure.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I agree with the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down in his remarks about the Debate this afternoon and the Debate this evening.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: He was not even in the House to support us.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I was going to say that it is more on these Estimates, when we have some definite stuff before us, that we get a chance of urging the Government to economise than it is on general debates such as that which took place before dinner. The real question which I rise to ask the Minister for Agriculture concerns the wheat subsidy. I understand that the wheat subsidy will continue for four years after the declaration by the Minister that it is to stop, he has to give notice, that is to say, four years before it stops. I should be pleased to be interrupted if I am wrong, and as I am not interrupted I understand that notice has not been given to date, and that we have to look forward for four years—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think there is any Vote for the wheat subsidy in the Estimates this year.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was just looking, but the right hon. Gentleman has saved me the trouble. It would be out of order, therefore, to discuss the wheat subsidy on this Vote.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I will leave that matter. I would like to echo the point made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) concerning the Agricultural Wages Board. Considering the amount that is being spent on it, I cannot see that we are getting out of it what we should get. As far as agriculture is concerned, I cannot see that the expenditure on the Wages Board, which is pretty large in staff, is justified. I am rather astonished, also, that we have to give such very heavy grants-in-aid to county agricultural committees. These committees may do a certain amount of good work, but it seems to me that it is going to be very expensive, and I should like to warn the right hon. Gentleman to keep a very careful eye on the expenditure of
these committees and to keep control over them that they do not start getting large staffs and buildings, and so on, of their own, which they are very apt to do. I should like the Minister also to keep his eye on the special services, for which there is a very large item here. We are having so many special services suggested at the present day in various Estimates, new special services which we did very well without, but which we cannot do without to-day for some reason or another, and I should like to ask the Minister to keep his eye very carefully glued to that item. Again, the item for travelling expenses is very large indeed, and although it is a criticism one has to make every time these Estimates come up, I do not think the criticism is wasted.

Captain W. BENN: In reading through these Estimates, one observes that there is a very large reduction on the total, which at first sight would lead one to suppose that useful economies were being made in the Department, but when we look at the items in the Estimate we find that a good many of the reductions, especially the largest, are in respect of transitory war services. I could mention the herring fishing grant, for example, which is reduced by about £1,000,000, and there is the grant-in-aid for the training of ex-service men, which has been reduced by about £500,000, and there are sundry reductions, most of which appear to be in respect of services of research or in some way of a remunerative kind. I apologise to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) for saying a word in favour of remunerative expenditure, but it is noticeable that the reductions which the Minister has succeeded in making are all of this character. The right hon. Baronet presided over a Committee last year which, if I may say so, did extremely useful work in examining the details of the Estimates of these Departments, and one of the Departments concerned was the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. They were not able to complete the work of examination of these accounts, because the Session ended, and they specially suggested that, if re-appointed this year, they might continue their work in examining the Estimates of this Ministry. The Committee has not been re-appointed, but another Committee is to take its place,
which, I presume, will continue these labours. If hon. Gentlemen are in earnest when they speak about reducing expenditure, here and now are the place and time to make their protest. It is useless to make general pledges in the country unless they are prepared to back those pledges by their votes on Supply. This Committee, with the greatest care and in great detail, went into the Votes of this Department and I think in the seventh of their Reports, the concluding Report of last year's labours, paragraphs 87 onwards, will be found a number of perfectly definite recommendations for the reduction of expenditure. They did not recommend that the herring fishery grant should be discontinued or that the training of ex-service men should be largely reduced. They went in a business-like way into the consideration of the details of expenditure, and I very much regret that I was not able to hear the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I wonder whether he dealt with the recommendations of this Committee.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I did on the Committee stage at great length, and I pointed out that practically all these recommendations were being carried out, but in view of the fact that they were only made very shortly before the commencement of this Session, they could not all be carried out in the present Estimates.

Captain W. BENN: I will refresh the memory of the House as to what these recommendations were, and perhaps the Minister in his reply will tell us how many of these things have actually been done. It is only by the most careful attention to details that effective economies can be made. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to travelling and subsistence allowances of inspectors? It was pointed out in the Committee that all officials with salaries between £400 and £600 a year were allowed to travel first-class, and a definite recommendation was made that this privilege should be restricted to officials with a salary of £1,200 a year or more. There are the makings of a small saving, but it is only by a number of small savings that a large aggregate can be produced. Then they spoke about the extravagant use of motor-cars by inspectors on their
journeys in the country, and they also spoke about the monthly "Journal" of the Ministry, which they pointed out was not self-supporting. This is the place to ask the Minister whether any of the recommendations have been carried out. Has the price of the "Journal" been increased? Has the number of free copies been limited, or have increased receipts from advertisements been secured in order to make this "Journal" self-supporting? Then they made a recommendation with reference to a fee in connection with application for the redemption of tithe rentcharge, and a recommendation with reference to a fertilisers' propaganda, suggesting that economies might be effected in that respect, too. They made a further recommendation in reference to the post of Woman Adviser. I very much regret if I have overlooked the explanation given by the Minister in respect of these things, but the only utility in having a Committee to examine Estimates is that their recommendations should be attended to by the Departments, and we do look to the Minister to see that these recommendations of the Expenditure Committee have, in fact, been attended to.

Sir F. BLAKE: I want to ask a question of the Minister under the heading of "Agricultural Wages Board." It is with reference to the local wages boards. My information and my experience are that these boards at a very large number of their meetings serve no object at all. They are overruled constantly, and they find that the rulings made by the principal wages board in London render it quite unnecessary and, indeed, useless for them to put in an appearance. Yet every member who does attend is entitled to his expenses, and those members who, of course, need their expenses most, the representatives of labour, are always there. Of course they claim their expenses quite rightly, but it all goes to add to the cost of the country, and, as everybody seems to be agreed that we should make every effort now to save expense in every possible way, when it is brought to your notice that these meetings are unnecessary, because the subjects to be dealt with have already been dealt with by a superior authority, one may well ask whether the Minister might not consider the advisability of abolishing these local boards altogether and have a wages board run entirely in London. I am told
that in my own county they have so little to do, or so much has been done for them, that, instead of holding their monthly meeting, they unanimously agreed to hold their meeting once a quarter, and even then there was not sufficient to summon them together. It may be a trivial matter, but it all goes to swell the expenditure, and I do think the Minister might make inquiry as to the opinion of local wages boards with regard to the necessity for their existence, and if he finds there is a strong feeling, as there is in the part of the country I come from, perhaps he will consider whether it is not desirable to abolish them altogether.
There is one other question I would like to mention. I promised someone the other day, when I was at the Botanic Gardens at Kew, that I would raise this question when I had an opportunity. There is a large part of these Gardens to which the public has no access, and one sees a notice put up that one part, the Bluebell Dale, is specially reserved, and the public are kept out of it, and kept on the walks, by a wish expressed by Her late Majesty Queen Victoria. It does seem to anyone going to look at it—and I took the trouble to look the other day, because my attention was called to it—that a very much larger portion of the Gardens is reserved in that way than is necessary to give effect to the wishes of Her late Majesty. I do not know whether it is a question for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with at once, but I did undertake to call attention to it, and perhaps he will make some inquiry as to why such a large portion of the Gardens is cut off.

Sir J. D. REES: I should like to ask the Minister a question with reference to the item "Sugar Beet." I should infer that the total subscription originally intended was £250,000, and that the whole of that was duly subscribed—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: May I point out that I have already dealt with that?

Sir J. D. REES: I beg your pardon. I was absent during my right hon. Friend's speech.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not wish to detain the House, but I think I must say a word in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). I can assure him that the recommendations of the Committee pre-
sided over by my right hon. Friend, and also the recommendations made by another Committee, presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow (Sir B. Stanier), have been most carefully taken into account by the Ministry, and we have carried out most of their recommendations in the present year. Some of them, as I have said, we did not get in time, but we have endeavoured to carry them out as far as can be, and I spoke about them at considerable length on the Committee stage. For instance, I think my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the "Journal." Well, we have largely reduced the free list, I think, from 3,000 to 1,000. That was one of the recommendations. Then he mentioned the question of abolishing the post of Woman Adviser. It has been abolished, and I am sorry to say the only result that has come to me has been that a great many Members of Parliament, who, no doubt, in general vote for economy, have written to me asking why we have abolished the post.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman says that they have dealt with the question of the "Journal," but I observe there is an increase in the cost of publication, so that there does not seem to have been very effective action on the part of the Ministry.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The increase is largely due to the increased cost of printing and publishing.

Captain BENN: Printing is cheaper than it was last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That, at all events, is not my experience. The cost has gone up, but we have reduced expenditure as far as we can, and we have carried out the recommendations of the Committee. As I have said, the difficulty of economising is, the moment you carry out an economy you are pressed by somebody to reverse your decision. Notwithstanding that, I have been trying by every means in my power to carry out both the recommendations of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) and the recommendations of the other Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Sir B. Stanier).

Captain W. BENN: And travelling allowances?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have issued the most drastic Regulations with regard to the use of motor cars.

Captain BENN: The figures are the same.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Estimates had already been prepared before we received the recommendations, but we shall undoubtedly show a saving.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will you accept a reduction?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, I cannot accept a reduction without going into the figures, but I can assure the House that I am doing my utmost to effect these economies, and I shall be disappointed if I do not do so before the end of the year. With regard to the point raised by my right hon. Friend behind me (Sir F. Blake), he mentioned the expenses of the District Wages Board, and pointed out that the expenses of members were paid. Parliament decided they should be paid, and I think that was a perfectly proper decision, because I fail to see how you can have adequate representation of labour unless their expenses are paid, and so long as that is the case I can do nothing.

Sir F. BLAKE: I did not suggest they should not be paid. I was only calling

attention to the fact they did not need to be called so often.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. Friend will realise I have not the power to regulate the number of their sittings. Meetings of the Central Wages Board and the District Wages Boards are called whenever the officials think they are necessary, and having set up Wages Boards I have no power whatever to regulate their proceedings. No doubt if I thought a Wages Board was meeting too often I might call their attention to it, but when you remember you have got Subcommittees of these Wages Boards who consider questions as to whether a man should be allowed to work for less than the minimum wage in consequence of some physical disability, I think my hon. Friend will realise frequent meetings, at all events of Sub-committees, are necessary. In regard to the point he raised as to Kew Gardens, that particular matter had not been brought to my notice, but I will undertake to consider the matter very carefully and give him an answer.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 19.

Division No. 119.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gretton, Colonel John


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)


Armitage, Robert
Coats, Sir Stuart
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Atkey, A. R.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hayday, Arthur


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Barnston, Major Harry
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hirst, G. H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Evans, Ernest
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Fell, Sir Arthur
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fildes, Henry
Holmes, J. Stanley


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Hopkins, John W. W.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Forrest, Walter
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
France, Gerald Ashburner
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Hurd, Percy A.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Gee, Captain Robert
Irving, Dan


Bromfield, William
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Jephcott, A. R.


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bruton, Sir James
Gillis, William
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Cairns, John
Green, Albert (Derby)
Kenyon, Barnet


Cape, Thomas
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Kidd, James


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sutherland, Sir William


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Swan, J. E.


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Perring, William George
Taylor, J.


Lloyd, George Butler
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Ramsden, G. T.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Lorden, John William
Raper, A. Baldwin
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lunn, William
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Tootill, Robert


McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Waddington, R.


Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Wallace, J.


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Maddocks, Henry
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Robertson, John
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Mason, Robert
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Waterson, A. E.


Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Rodger, A. K.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Royce, William Stapleton
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Morgan, Major D. Watts
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Morris, Richard
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Morrison, Hugh
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Seager, Sir William
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sexton, James
Winterton, Earl


Murchison, C. K.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Wise, Frederick


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Myers, Thomas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Neal, Arthur
Smith, W. R. (Welling borough)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)



Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Steel, Major S. Strang
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Parker, James
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Mr. Dudley Ward and Lieut.-


Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Sturrock, J. Leng
Colonel Sir J. Gilmour.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sugden, W. H.



NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hogge, James Myles
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Brown, Major D. C.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Galbraith, Samuel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Glanville, Harold James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Colonel Penry Williams.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)



Second Resolution read a Second time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out "£178,346" and to insert instead thereof "£78,346."
I wish to know what would be the position if we stopped these surveys for the next two or three years? I see that there are on the staff two lieut.-colonels, four majors, five captains, one lieutenant, one quartermaster, and two staff officers. At the present time we have a great shortage of troops which is proved by the fact that we have had to call out the Reserves for the Defence Force, and I am sure that many of these officers would be much better employed relieving shopkeepers who have had to leave their businesses. Many of these tradesmen could be released if some of the officers on this Vote were put in their places. I will not divide the House if it can be proved that this expenditure is vitally necessary. We are told in the Treasury circular which has just been issued that:
A reduction of expenditure upon the requisite scale can only be effected by a
common effort entailing heavy and general sacrifices of services which are in themselves desirable.
I daresay that the surveys of the United Kingdom are very desirable, but I want to know if they are essential. They are costing £335,346, and. I understand that there has been a decrease of £24,000, but I wish to point out that the expenditure on surveys before the War was substantially less. Unless the Government can assure us that it is vitally essential to carry on these surveys at this great cost I shall press my Amendment to a division, and I hope all economists in the House will support me.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will permit me on this occasion to play the part of an Under-Secretary, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is not present because I have persuaded him that he had better go and have some dinner. Under these
circumstances perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to reply. If you brought these surveys to an end, of course no more ordnance maps would be produced in this country, and you would disband a highly trained technical staff, many of them pension able servants, whom you could not dismiss without putting them upon the pension list. But you would do more than that. This work is carried out in the main by the Royal Engineers, and I believe anybody who is acquainted with the work of the Royal Engineers in the late War would be ready to give the highest credit to their skill, accuracy, and competence. May I point out that that skill and competence had been attained in this civilian work. Therefore it would not be a real economy to follow the course suggested by this Amendment, that is, to disband this staff and stop the training of our Royal Engineers in this important branch of their work and thus incur superannuation allowances. The amount of the work has been reduced and the Vote is less, although the expenses of each unit are higher because the wages of civilians are higher. In spite of that, the Vote shows a reduction. The work has been limited in view of the present situation, and without saying that it might not be reduced a little more—as to which I am not competent to speak without further examination—I do say that it would not be in the public interest to interrupt this service in the way suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The explanation which has just been given by the Leader of the House shows no glimpse of the spirit which actuates the Treasury Circular which has been submitted to the House. I thought we should have heard from him some sort of promise that these surveys which have been going on steadily year after year would be curtailed. Here we have no real reduction; merely a reduction representing, I presume, the amount of the bonus—£24,000. The whole organisation is being kept at the same pace and of the same scope as in the most flourishing times of our national finance in the last 20 years. I expected to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that this was one of those normal, although very useful but still not vitally necessary services at the moment in regard to which he proposed to seize the opportunity of ascertaining whether
some substantial reduction could be made, not two years hence, but this year. It would have shown how far the Government are in earnest in this matter. May I quote the conclusion of the Memorandum of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the same spirit as that in which my right hon. Friend has just spoken:
It need scarcely be added that it is highly desirable that any economies which examination shows to be possible shall be brought into operation, if practicable, at the earliest possible date within the current year.
That is a pious expression of a hope which might fructify in 1922 or 1923. But these things ought to be done this year, and I am quite certain of this: that this service, admirable though it be, extremely useful though it is, could have a real reduction made in it in the present year. My hon. and gallant Friend, in moving a reduction of £100,000, I think, is asking rather too much, and I hope he will lessen the amount so as to bring it more within the compass of what is actually possible. Certainly I shall vote for it as a protest against the attitude of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that this survey is carried on by the Royal Engineers, and he paid tribute to the excellence of the work thus done. It was my privilege to serve in a minor capacity in the Royal Engineers, and if there was one thing that struck me more than anything else, it was their wonderful adaptability. I venture to suggest that if this service were suspended for a short time, the country would not suffer, because the wonderful adaptability of the staff is such that they could usefully transfer their activities in other directions in order to achieve this economy. If we are to be economical, this is one of the services where economy could be practised without injury either to trade, or to health, or to the real work of the country. We can better economise on a service of this kind than in the Departments of the Minister of Health or of the Minister of Education. We can much better afford to economise on a service such as this, because, if it is held up for a year or two, trade or health would not suffer, and we should be putting into practice those virtues of
economy to which we pay so much lip service, although, when there is a real opportunity for putting them into practice, we are apt to get some wonderful excuse from the Government Bench as to why the particular economy in question should not materialise. I hope that the House, by supporting this Amendment, will express its protest and show its desire for genuine economy where the National Services will not suffer any real set-back.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that the hon. Member who has just sat down has done much to advance the cause he has at heart, because he has selected something about which he does not care, and is prepared to save money on that, while at the same time he dissociates himself from saving upon something about which he happens to entertain certain illusions. Having said that, may I, firstly, say that I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman was here to give his explanation, and, secondly, point out that while some of us felt that probably there was some reason for not opposing the Government on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, this is a case in which we could show that money ought to be saved. It is not much use trying to do that after the money has been already voted, but now we are actually voting the money, and I think it is possible that some saving might be effected on this Estimate. My right hon. Friend says, and probably very truly, that there are a certain number of skilled people whom it is necessary to keep employed in this way, because other wise they would have to be superannuated or found work elsewhere; but may I point out that it might be possible, while keep-

ing these particular gentlemen, to limit the amount of work which they have to do, and so to dispense with some of their subordinates, and also to save travelling expenses, which, I see, amount to a considerable sum. If one looks at the Estimate, one finds that the only real reduction, as compared with last year, is a sum of £10,000. The decrease is put in the Estimate at £24,000, but that arises from the fact that the Appropriation-in-Aid is reduced by £14,000, the net decrease being really only £10,000.

I should have thought that we might have gone on for a year or two without these surveys being kept up to date. I presume that only a portion of the survey of the United Kingdom is made every year, and that it is thought advisable, as, no doubt, it was in the past, to keep these maps up to date; but I really think we might go a little gently at the present moment, and I would suggest that, as it is rather late to take a Division, if my right hon. Friend would consent to accept some small reduction of the Vote, some advance might be made in the direction in which we are all supposed to desire to move, namely, that of a diminution in the expenditure of the country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to substitute a reduction of £25,000 for the one which I have already moved, and accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out "£178,346," and to insert instead thereof "£153,346."

Question put, "That '£178,346' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 73.

Division No. 120.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Forestier-Walker, L.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Brown, Major D. C.
Forrest, Walter


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bruton, Sir James
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Cautley, Henry Strother
Gee, Captain Robert


Barnston, Major Harry
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Green, Albert (Derby)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Coats, Sir Stuart
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Evans, Ernest
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fildes, Henry
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Hopkins, John W. W.
Morrison, Hugh
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Hurd, Percy A.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Neal, Arthur
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Jephcott, A. R.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Sugden, W. H.


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Parker, James
Sutherland, Sir William


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Taylor, J.


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Kidd, James
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Perring, William George
Tryon, Major George Clement


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Wallace, J.


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Purchase, H. G.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Lloyd, George Butler
Ramsden, G. T.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Raper, A. Baldwin
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Lorden, John William
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Maddocks, Henry
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Mason, Robert
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Rodger, A. K.
Wise, Frederick


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur



Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Seager, Sir William
Mr. Dudley Ward and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir J. Gilmour.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Atkey, A. R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Robertson, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Sexton, James


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles, W.
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Irving, Dan
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Tootill, Robert


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenyon, Barnet
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gillis, William
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Winterton, Earl


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gretton, Colonel John
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Grady, James



Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Hogge.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I should like to ask the Government a question before this Vote is passed. During the War aerial photography was developed to a very large extent, and largely used at the Front, with the most beneficial results, for the purpose of map-making. It was said very freely on all hands that its development during the War, or in future, might have a most marked effect on map-making, and particularly that it would diminish the cost of map-making. I should like to ask whether anything is
being done to employ aerial photography in map-making by the Royal Engineers, who are responsible for the survey of the United Kingdom. So far as my information goes, if it is so used, a great economy could be effected in map-making in this country.

Earl WINTERTON: I should like to raise a somewhat analogous question, which I endeavoured to raise before the War on the Colonial Office Vote, but I was told that it should be more properly addressed to the Minister in charge of this Vote. At all times, and especially at the present time, in practically all the dependencies and the smaller colonies
overseas it is impossible to get the land survey that is required for publication among the settlers and others, and one is constantly met by the answer from the Colonial Secretary that the Colonial Office has no Survey Department available. I suggest that at a period when there is no great necessity to keep up a high standard of survey in this country, it might be a very proper time for lending the services of the officers of the Survey Department of the Royal Engineers to the colonies and dependencies overseas. The development of those colonies, especially in South America and Africa, is held back because it is impossible to get the land surveyor. Many of those colonies are in a prosperous position at present and would be glad to spend the money required to pay the Survey Department for the services of competent surveyors. You might possibly save on this Vote in future by an arrangement between the Survey Department and the Colonial Office by which the services of competent surveyors could be lent to the dominions and colonies overseas. It is absurd to use the argument that was used recently by the Leader of the House that the services of these men must be utilised in some way when there is a crying need for every colony and dependency overseas to have the services of skilled surveyors. It is an instance of that lack of co-ordination between Government Departments which is rapidly becoming a scandal that no endeavour has been made to utilise the services of these men overseas. I hope that the Minister in charge will indicate that he will get into communication with the Colonial Office to see whether the services of skilled surveyors cannot be lent for overseas work.

Captain W. BENN: My hon. and gallant Friend has made an interesting suggestion as to which great economy is possible, I do not know whether immediately, but certainly in the long run, by the substitution in some respects of aerial survey for land survey. I do not know anything about land survey, but I have had a little experience, and my hon. and gallant Friend has had more, of aerial survey, and if the Minister looks at this matter in a progressive spirit he may find it possible to save public money by adopting the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend. I believe that aerial
survey is even used for surveying water. In the Red Sea—the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton), I believe, is familiar with the facts—aerial survey was used for charting reefs. Where the water is clear a survey of that kind is much quicker and cheaper than an ordinary survey. I do not know the number of men or the amount of apparatus or the experience required for surveying a piece of land in the ordinary way, but I do know that at a moderate height, or at a great height with the necessary telescopic camera, a piece of land can be most accurately surveyed and the survey can be carried on from place to place, so as to produce a complete chart of the land which is accurate within very narrow limits. I know, for example, that during the War the Sinai peninsula was surveyed for the first time by aerial photography. Everybody knows that in the War, when the greatest accuracy was necessary for battery work, aerial photographs were used and guns were trained on positions which were only known by means of aerial surveys.

Earl WINTERTON: And for trench raids.

Captain BENN: And if you can chart with accuracy to within a few feet by means of aerial photography, which can be carried out in a few moments it should be tried. The suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend is a most valuable one and I hope that the Minister in his reply, which I do not expect to be a long one, will at least hold out some hope that the idea will receive consideration.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As to aerial survey, I need hardly say that all means whereby the survey of a country can be carried out as economically and efficiently as they are now carried out, will be considered. Our ordnance maps are really the most accurate things of the kind in the world. There is the question of elevation. I do not know enough of aerial surveying to be able to say whether it can deal with the contour and configuration of the land. The minute descriptions of buildings and enclosures I doubt whether you could get as accurately from the air as they are given in our ordnance survey. It has been suggested that we might economise by stopping this work altogether. We have a magnificent establishment in existence. The land has been surveyed
from year to year. Owing to building operations, the erection of new works, the sinking of new pits, and so on, changes have constantly been made and maps rapidly get out of date. It would be a grave disaster if we disbanded this extraordinarily highly trained staff which, probably, we could not gather together again and get into its present state of efficiency except after the lapse of many years. My Noble Friend (Earl Winterton) has suggested that we might economise by employing surveyors in the Colonies. I did not gather whether he meant the civilian part of the staff or the Royal Engineers. I agree that, having regard to the nature of many of our Colonies, new and unexplored countries, much could be done, but, after all, who is going to pay for it?

Earl WINTERTON: At this moment land settlement for ex-soldiers and ex-sailors is being held up in Rhodesia, and I believe in Kenya Colony, because it is impossible to obtain the services of skilled surveyors. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should send some of his Department overseas. He could thus save money to this country and he could eventually get the money back from the Colonies.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: "Eventually get the money back," but before we can do anything of that kind we must come to some agreement with the Dominion or Colonial Government.

Earl WINTERTON: Have you taken any steps in that direction?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am quite prepared to put myself into communication with the Colonial Office, but I should regard it as a grave national misfortune if for what is really quite a small sum we abandoned a service which has done such excellent work in the past, a service which we could not restart except probably at great expense. You will have to get rid of numbers of officials, and probably most of them will be pensionable. I think it has already been pointed out that one of the principal duties of an officer of the Ordnance Survey is to train the staff of the Royal Engineers in surveying. We saw the fruits of that in the War. No sooner did the War break out than the Ordnance Survey staff at home was reduced to a minimum, and nearly every one of the
trained men sent abroad, with the result that the maps made by the Royal Enginners who had been trained in the Ordnance Survey Department were magnificently done, and were of the greatest service to the army both in France and in other countries. To disperse and disband a service of that sort which is both civilian and military is a very serious matter. I hope the House will not suggest that any such course should be adopted. We have here splendid work being done at an economical rate. I am using all possible means to economise further, as much as possible in this and in the Agricultural Department, but I cannot see it would be in the national interest to disband this staff.

Mr. ACLAND: In following hon. Members who have previously raised questions on this Vote, I am bound to say I look at this from a special point of view as one who is interested in forestry. That is a department of Government activities which costs between £300,000 and £400,000, and in regard to it the part usually played by my hon. Friends behind me has been taken up by the Treasury, who are proposing to cut it down by £200,000. The speeches which have been made to-day by some right hon. Gentlemen opposite will be of the greatest value to us in resisting that proposed slaughter of the forestry services threatened by the Treasury at the present time. They are using all the arguments which we have been using up to the present in vain, and it will be splendid to have all those arguments reinforced out of their own mouths. When the Leader of the House talked about the bad effect of trying to pull up services by the roots, the necessity of paying heavy superannuation allowances to civil servants who would be displaced, and the importance of the steady continuity of the services as being of the real essence of economy, he was bringing forward arguments which will be used again to prevent this service being entirely destroyed. Next year we might take £50,000 off forestry; even this year we might take £25,000, but the refusal of the Government to accept even the most moderate reduction formerly, will now strengthen our hands in resisting any reduction this year. What folly this proposal is! It is quite obvious if the Government really means economy they
could have agreed to that moderate reduction of £25,000 in a service of £350,000, and in this and several other Votes we would have been delighted to meet them. Now we shall be reinforced to prevent the reduction which is proposed. It is not a good half-hour's work for the Treasury which has been done while this Vote was under discussion. As one interested in forestry, I am thoroughly glad those speeches have been made from those Benches to-night.

REPORT [24TH MAY].

Resolutions reported,

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1921–22.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,836,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1922."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,821,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £720,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £389,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
5. "That a sum, not exceeding £465,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
6. "That a sum, not exceeding £449,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
7. "That a sum, not exceeding £580,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, &c., which will come in course of payment during the vear ending on the 31st day of March 1922."
276
8. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,725,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
9. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,093,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay and Retired Pay, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
10. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,003,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
11. "That a sum, not exceeding £816,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): May I make an appeal to the House? We had a very full discussion in Committee on Vote 10 only last night, and we really do want to get this through the Report stage. As the House knows, we cannot start any of the works for which we are asking under this Vote until we get the authority of the House and the Vote has passed the Report stage. There are very many vital works which we want to start badly. For that reason I ask the House to let us have the Vote, but there is another even more powerful one. We want money for the general work, as we are running very short. If the House will give us Vote 10, I will not ask for any other Vote to-night.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out "£5,836,600," and to insert instead thereof "£5,036,600."
Cannot the Government take something on account to go on with? I am not deaf to the appeal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we had a discussion, taken part in by about twenty people, yesterday afternoon. Here we have a Vote for a very substantial sum for bricks and mortar. I believe I could show to the House on a later occasion that much of it could be saved without any great loss to the Navy. In view of the financial state of the country, we are not entitled to vote this money for what used to be called non-effective services—stones and bricks. I would ask whether we cannot have a reduction now, on the understanding that, if the money is not sufficient, the Govern-
ment can come forward, as they probably will in any case later on, with a Supplementary Estimate. Otherwise the thing is simply a farce. What is the good of our having a Report stage for this Vote for the very large sum of over £5,000,000 if, as soon as the hon. and gallant Member makes a very charming appeal, we simply fall down and agree to it. I gather that the Government will not accept a reduction and so move my Amendment. It is not much on the total amount.
There are all sorts of items. Take the one on the first page—Electrification of Bermuda Dockyard, £35,000, and Machinery for Bermuda, £75,000. Bermuda would be only of one service, and that is in a war with our fellow English-speaking nation, the United States of America. We are purposely delaying the commencement of the new super-dreadnought in order, I presume, that we may fully explore the possibilities of a naval agreement with the United States. There are excellent reasons for delaying the electrification of the Bermuda dockyard, which did its work very well during the War without electrification. This could easily be postponed for two years. At Chatham we are remodelling machinery, putting in new welding plant, lifting bridges over caissons, and so on. Yet, during the War, Chatham had a great strain put upon it. A record number of ships were mobilised for the Navy, and we had over 3,000 vessels, great and small, armed and on the seas during the War. Our naval and private dockyards stood the strain, yet when the War is over, and our men are demobilised, the Government are going forward with schemes for refitting the dockyards. There is an expenditure of £8,000 on Wei-hai-wei which could not be justified on any strategic ground. Pembroke, which is being given up as a dockyard eventually, in spite of the protests of the Welsh Members, is having a considerable sum spent on it for new piers and slipways, which I cannot understand, and all over the country new establishments are being put up for storage of explosives, new barracks, new shell scraping depots—all bricks and mortar. I know a case can be made for it, but, in the terms of the Financial Secretary, are these services which, while in themselves desirable, can be dispensed with? I submit that this
reduction can be accepted by the Admiralty, and while I again regret that I cannot listen to the voice of the charmer in the shape of my hon. and gallant Friend, I hope he will accept the reduction.

Dr. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Commander BELLAIRS: I do not wish to stand in the way of the hon. and gallant Member getting this Vote. I did not take part in the discussion yesterday because I was convinced of the unreality of the whole Debate. This Vote 10 will depend ultimately upon the discussion of the question of disarmament and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, and I hope the Admiralty will give us a promise that Votes 8 and 12 will come before the House for discussion at some future stage so that we can discuss the question of policy after the Imperial Conference has taken place.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): indicated assent.

Mr. HOGGE: This Vote is one which was only taken in Committee yesterday. What strikes a great many of us on this side is that, in view of what is happening and of the successful steps the Prime Minister is taking with regard to foreign policy, we should be encouraging this year an expenditure for the Admiralty, which in this Vote accounts for an increase of £680,000. One would have thought, in the circumstances, that the one Service in this country for which we should not have required an increase was the Navy. I could understand that for a particular purpose the Admiralty might wish certain moneys, but when one turns to the pages succeeding page 97, one finds, for example, that a number of the expenditures which we are asked—

It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Second and subsequent Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered, "That so much of the Lords, Message of 11th May as refers to Consolidation Bills be now considered."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, "That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message, to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Major Birchall, Sir Thomas Bramsdon, Mr. Hartshorn, Mr. Herbert Lewis, and Mr. Rawlinson nominated members of the Select Committee.

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Ordered, "That Three be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

OVERSEAS TRADE [CREDITS AND INSURANCES].

Committee to consider of authorising the extension of the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurances) Act, 1920, to the giving of guarantees in connection with export transactions and to amend the said Act as regards the countries in respect of which it applies, and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required in connection with the giving of such guarantees up to an amount not exceeding, together with any amount outstanding in respect of credits granted under the said Act, £26,000,000, and of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade by reason of such extension
and amendment of the said Act as aforesaid—[King's Recommendation signified]—To-morrow.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

FINANCE [CONSOLIDATED FUND].

Committee to consider of authorising the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may become payable under any Act of the present Session dealing with Finance, and of authorising the remission of certains sums repayable to the Civil Contingencies Fund', and of reducing the amount to be repaid to the Exchequer from the Civil Contingencies Fund—[King's Recommendation signified]—To-morrow.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [GRANTS].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants under Section 1 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses in Scotland completed within three years and six months, or within two years and six months, as the case may be, of the passing of that Act, or such further period, not exceeding four months, as the Scottish Board of Health may, in any special case, allow, and of limiting the aggregate amount of such grants in respect of houses in Scotland—[King's Recommendation signified]—To-morrow.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.